Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 46 references

Autonomous Dominant Resource Fairness for Blockchain Ecosystems

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A smart-contract adaptation of Dominant Resource Fairness lets a blockchain allocate many resource types fairly at per-call gas costs that scale with the number of resources but not with the number of users.

desk verdict A modest, honest engineering paper: ADRF puts PDRF on-chain with clean gas measurements, but the fairness claim is inherited from a self-cited preprint and never re-measured. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.16350 v1 pith:SAMLACXV submitted 2025-07-22 cs.DC

Serdar Metin This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.DC
keywords blockchainsmartcontractdominantresourcefairnessallocationprecomputedgascostmax-mindecentralisedmanagement
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper sets out to bring Dominant Resource Fairness (DRF), the standard scheme for fairly sharing several resource types among users with heterogeneous demands, onto a blockchain, where the block gas limit makes DRF's iterative allocation loop impractical. Its algorithm, Autonomous Dominant Resource Fairness (ADRF), replaces the loop with three smart-contract functions, demand, claim, and update state, which users themselves execute in alternating block epochs, so gas cost depends on the number of resource types but not on the number of users. Measured on a local Ethereum test bed, all three functions scale linearly in the number of resources with near-perfect $R^2$ values, and the regressions stay far below the block gas limit even at hundreds of resources. What a sympathetic reader gains is a concrete recipe for loop-free, multi-resource fair allocation on-chain, and a measured case that the block gas limit need not confine blockchain resource management to fixed bundles.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the precomputed cycle count of PDRF, $k' = \min_r \left( ds'^*_r\, r\, p \big/ \sum_i ds'_i\, d_{ir} \right)$, computed once per epoch by a single loop over the resource vector in the update state function, with the per-user share $\lfloor k\, ds^*/ds_i \rfloor \cdot d_i$ evaluated client-side in the claim function. Two further mechanisms carry the 'autonomous' part: a $2 \times m$ cyclic buffer holding reserves for two alternating resource pools so that demand registration (reading one pool) and claims (draining the other) run in parallel epochs, and an epoch-synchronisation scheme in which users are expected to call demand and claim in consecutive fixed-length block windows. The rearrangement of the $k'$ formula into precomputable aggregates, namely $p/ds^*$ and $\sum_i p\, d_{ir}/ds_i$, stored incrementally by each demand call, is what lets the contract avoid floating point arithmetic while keeping rounding error to at most one task.

What would settle it

Deploy the published contract, draw the same discrete uniform demands as the paper, and run a reference DRF implementation on the same demand vectors: if noticeably more than 47% of users end up more than one task short of their DRF allocation, or if overallocation exceeds 0.06%, the inherited approximation bound fails for ADRF. The 'unlimited users' claim is separately checkable by holding resources fixed, doubling the number of registered users, and recording claim gas, which the paper claims stays flat.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that DRF-style multi-resource fair allocation can run on a blockchain without any central allocation loop: ADRF is 'an implementation of pure PDRF' in which each user registers a demand vector in one epoch and claims a precomputed share in the next. The contract computes the number $k'$ of DRF cycles available before some resource is depleted, using fixed-point arithmetic with precision $p = 10^6$ to emulate floating point, and each user receives $\lfloor k \cdot ds^*/ds_i \rfloor \cdot d_i$ units, where $ds_i$ is her dominant share, the largest fraction of any single resource she requests, and $d_i$ her demand vector. The attached measurements give linear gas models $g_c = 15,130\,m + 36,486$ for claim, $g_d = 13,616\,m + 47,245$ for demand, and $g_u = 11,295\,m + 23,539$ for update state, all with $R^2$ close to 1 up to $m = 100$ resource types, with user count absent from the cost. The fairness claim is inherited from PDRF: under discrete uniform demands, on average 47% of users get one task fewer than DRF would give and 0.06% are overallocated, and ADRF simply hands unallocated excess reserves to the next epoch.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's fairness claim is borrowed, not measured: ADRF inherits PDRF's approximation of DRF, on average one task short for 47% of users and 0.06% overallocated, figures reported only for discrete uniform demands in a companion preprint, and the paper does not measure ADRF's own deviation from DRF.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Within Ethereum's 32,000,000 block gas limit, the measured regressions imply ADRF can manage well over 1,000 resource types, and hundreds comfortably.
  • Because per-call gas does not grow with the user set, the contract can serve arbitrarily many users without re-deployment or user-count-dependent gas costs.
  • Multi-resource allocation with heterogeneous demands becomes practical on-chain, replacing the fixed virtual-machine bundle abstraction that dominates the blockchain resource-allocation literature.
  • A weighted variant of ADRF costs only one extra division per function, so user- or resource-level weights can be added without approaching the gas limit.
  • Unused reserves from one epoch are not wasted; they roll into the next epoch's pool, which the paper argues fits blockchain tokens that users may save and spend later.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A natural next test the paper leaves open is to measure ADRF's actual distance from DRF on-chain, including the effect of rolling excess reserves between epochs, rather than inheriting PDRF's off-chain statistics; if the one-task error bound survives rollover, the fairness claim is on firmer ground.
  • The same demand/claim division of labour could be applied to other iterative allocation schemes, such as variants of DRF with indivisibilities or dynamic weights, since the technique replaces any central loop with precomputed client-side shares.
  • The paper's aside that DRF is an implicit pricing mechanism, valuing most-demanded and least-supplied resources through the dominant share, suggests ADRF could double as an on-chain price-discovery rule for token ecosystems, a use case the paper mentions but does not develop.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Autonomous Dominant Resource Fairness (ADRF), a smart contract adaptation of Precomputed Dominant Resource Fairness (PDRF) for blockchain environments. ADRF replaces the central allocation loop of DRF with three functions: updateState, which precomputes the number of PDRF cycles; demand, with which users register their demands and update scaled demand sums; and claim, with which users compute their reserved share and deduct it from the resource reserves. The empirical section reports gas cost measurements on Brownie/Ethereum for up to 100 resource types with 10 users, giving linear regressions such as gas_claim = 15,130·m + 36,486 (R² = 1) and concluding that gas cost is independent of the number of users. The paper claims ADRF is a gas-cost-efficient algorithm that can manage hundreds of resource types for an unlimited number of users.

Significance. If the fairness and efficiency properties are confirmed, ADRF would be a useful building block for multi-resource fair allocation on blockchains, where the block gas limit makes loop-based DRF implementations unattractive. The reported gas measurements are internally consistent, with near-perfect R² values that are plausible for deterministic loops over resource types, and the contract code appears to be available in a public repository. The main unresolved point is the fairness approximation: the paper does not independently validate that ADRF's allocations are close to DRF, and it does not compare against a loop-based baseline, so the central claims in the abstract and conclusion are only partially supported by the presented evidence.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sections 3.3 and 4] The fairness guarantee of ADRF is not established. Section 4 explicitly states that ADRF is 'an implementation of pure PDRF' and that the problem of distributing excess reserves is not addressed. The only quantitative evidence that PDRF approximates DRF is the statistic in Section 3.3 ('47% of the users are allocated 1 task short... 0.06% are overallocated'), which is cited to the author's own preprint [11] and is obtained under a discrete uniform demand distribution. No ADRF-specific measurement of the deviation from true DRF is provided, nor is there a repeated-epoch analysis to show that the per-epoch underallocation does not accumulate or that the omitted correction step is immaterial. Because the algorithm's stated purpose is fair multi-resource allocation, this missing validation is load-bearing. The cross-check in Section 5 only shows that the Solidity implementation matches a Python implementation of PDRF; it does not test against DRF itself.
  2. [Sections 1 and 6] The efficiency claim lacks a baseline comparison. The stated motivation is that DRF's allocation loop is prone to block gas limit exhaustion, but the paper provides no measurements of a loop-based DRF smart contract. The regressions in Section 6 (e.g., gas_claim = 15,130·m + 36,486, gas_demand = 13,616·m + 47,245, gas_update = 11,295·m + 23,539) report absolute gas costs for ADRF only. Without demonstrating that a conventional DRF implementation is more expensive or infeasible for the tested ranges of users and resources, the conclusion that ADRF is 'gas-cost efficient' (Abstract) is only partially supported.
  3. [Sections 5 and 7] The claim of 'unlimited number of users' is not supported by the data presented in the manuscript. All tests described in Section 5 use 10 users; the paper argues from the absence of user loops that gas cost is independent of n, but it does not report experiments with larger user counts in the paper (only a pointer to a repository). The wording in the Abstract and Section 7 should be qualified, e.g., to 'independent of the number of users in the tested range' or be backed by additional experiments with substantially larger n.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 3.3] Typo: 'On avarage' should be 'On average'.
  2. [Section 3.4] The phrase 'deduces the assigned amount from the total reserve' should use 'deducts' instead of 'deduces'.
  3. [Table 1] The table header includes an 'Avg.' column, but the rows appear to contain only five values (number of resources, calls 1–3, and standard deviation). Clarify what 'Avg.' denotes and provide the corresponding values, or remove the column.
  4. [Algorithm 1, line 13] The notation 'r← r1−s + er' is ambiguous; use a distinct subscript or label to clarify that this is an element of the cyclic buffer.
  5. [Reference [44]] The repository link points to a project titled 'blockchainFaucet'; please clarify that the ADRF contract is contained there or provide a dedicated link to the ADRF code.
  6. [Section 4.2] With precision factor p = 1,000,000, the intermediate computation in Algorithm 1, line 14, multiplies r, ds'_*, and p; a brief comment on potential integer overflow limits would be useful, especially if the code is intended for larger reserve values.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the gas-cost result is measured, and the self-cited PDRF fairness inheritance is a validation gap rather than a definitional loop.

full rationale

The paper's gas-cost claim does not reduce to its inputs. The linear regressions in Section 6 (gas_c = 15,130*m + 36,486, gas_d = 13,616*m + 47,245, gas_us = 11,295*m + 23,539) are fit to measured gas data reported in Tables 1-3, and the independence from the number of users is a structural consequence of the absence of user loops, cross-checked against data as stated in Section 5. The fairness component is inherited rather than derived in this paper: Section 4 states that ADRF is 'an implementation of pure PDRF,' and the DRF-approximation statistics in Section 3.3 are attributed to the author's own preprint [11]. Footnote 1 explicitly discloses that PDRF emerged from the same blockchain-adaptation project, so this is a self-citation. However, it is not circular: PDRF's approximation is presented as an independent property of the PDRF formula, not as a parameter fitted to ADRF's claimed performance, and ADRF does not fit any fairness quantity to the outcome it asserts. The paper's weakness is evidentiary: the PDRF approximation statistics are not re-derived here, ADRF-specific fairness deviation is not measured, and the excess-reserve correction is deliberately omitted. That is a validation gap and a correctness risk, but not a reduction of the conclusion to the assumptions, so no circularity step is identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The algorithm itself introduces no free parameters beyond the precision factor p, but the scalability prediction rests on fitted regression coefficients. The main axioms are the inherited PDRF approximation quality, the adequacy of integer rounding, and epoch synchronization. No new entities are postulated.

free parameters (2)
  • precision factor p = 1,000,000
    Hand-chosen in Section 4.2 to keep 6 decimal places in fixed-point Solidity arithmetic. It affects how rounding is done in k' and share calculations but does not change the linear gas-cost scaling.
  • gas regression coefficients for claim, demand, and update functions = claim: 15,130 per resource plus 36,486; demand: 13,616 per resource plus 47,245; update: 11,295 per resource plus 23,539
    Fitted to the measured gas data in Section 6 and used to extrapolate support for more than 1,000 resource types. They are outputs of the measurement, not inputs to the algorithm, but the scalability claim depends on their extrapolation.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption PDRF's approximation of DRF, including the 47% underallocated-by-one-task and 0.06% overallocation statistics, remains valid for ADRF.
    Section 3.3 cites [11] for these statistics; Section 4 states ADRF is 'pure PDRF' and does not address excess reserves. ADRF's fairness claim depends on these unmeasured statistics.
  • domain assumption Integer division with precision p = 1,000,000 preserves the intended DRF ratios closely enough.
    Sections 4.4 through 4.6 replace real-valued division with fixed-point integer arithmetic; the paper only cross-checks against a Python PDRF implementation and gives no error bound.
  • domain assumption Every user can submit one demand and one claim within a fixed epoch span.
    Section 4.3 requires users to demand in one epoch and claim in the next. If the user population exceeds the block capacity of an epoch, the scheme cannot serve everyone, so the 'unlimited users' claim fails.
  • standard math Max-min Fairness and DRF are the correct fairness benchmarks for multi-resource allocation.
    The paper adopts DRF [9] as the fairness target without challenging it; this is standard background.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Autonomous Dominant Resource Fairness for Blockchain Ecosystems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SAMLACXV

@misc{pith2026250716350,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Autonomous Dominant Resource Fairness for Blockchain Ecosystems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SAMLACXV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.16350}
}
read the original abstract

Blockchain systems have been a part of mainstream academic research, and a hot topic at that. It has spread to almost every subfield in the computer science literature, as well as economics and finance. Especially in a world where digital trust is much sought for, blockchains offer a rich variety of desired properties, such as immutability, public auditing, decentralised record keeping, among others. Not only has it been a research topic of its own, the integration of blockchains into other systems has been proposed as solutions in many areas, ranging from grid computing, cloud and fog computing, to internet of things, self driving vehicles , and smart cities. In many cases the primary function attributed to blockchains in these contexts is resource management. Although much attention is paid to this topic, the focus is on single resource allocation scenarios. Even the cases where multiple resource types are to be allocated, are treated as single resource type scenarios, and problems are formulated as allocating standardised bundles consisting of a fixed amount of each of them, such as virtual machines. The present study addresses the problem of allocating multiple resource types among tasks with heterogeneous resource demands with a smart contract adaptation of Precomputed Dominant Resource Fairness; an algorithm that approximates Dominant Resource Fairness, without loop iterations, which makes it preferable in the blockchain context because of the block gas limit. We present the resulting algorithm, Autonomous Dominant Resource Fairness, along with the empirical data collected from the tests run on the algorithm. The results show that Autonomous Dominant Resource Fairness is a gas-cost efficient algorithm, which can be used to manage hundreds of resource types for unlimited number of users.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.16350 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Demand function for varying number of resources (function call 3) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Update state function for varying number of resources (function call [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages

  1. [11]

    Metin, Precomputed dominant resource fairness, arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.08846 (2025)

    S. Metin, Precomputed dominant resource fairness, arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.08846 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  2. [1]

    Nakamoto, et al., Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer electronic cash system (2008)

    S. Nakamoto, et al., Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer electronic cash system (2008)

    work page 2008

  3. [2]

    Buterin, et al., Ethereum white paper, GitHub repository 1 (22-23) (2013) 5–7

    V . Buterin, et al., Ethereum white paper, GitHub repository 1 (22-23) (2013) 5–7

    work page 2013

  4. [3]

    B. C. Eikmanns, P. Mehrwald, P. G. Sandner, I. M. Welpe, Decentralised finance platform ecosystems: conceptualisation and outlook, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 37 (4) (2025) 404–416

    work page 2025

  5. [4]

    Davidson, The nature of the decentralised autonomous organisation, Journal of Institutional Economics 21 (2025) e5

    S. Davidson, The nature of the decentralised autonomous organisation, Journal of Institutional Economics 21 (2025) e5

    work page 2025

  6. [5]

    Gulia, N

    Rahul, P. Gulia, N. S. Gill, Articulation of blockchain enabled e-voting systems: a systematic literature review, Peer-to-Peer Networking and Ap- plications 18 (3) (2025) 142

    work page 2025

  7. [6]

    K. Doka, T. Bakogiannis, I. Mytilinis, G. Goumas, Cloudagora: De- mocratizing the cloud, in: Blockchain–ICBC 2019: Second International Conference, Held as Part of the Services Conference Federation, SCF 2019, San Diego, CA, USA, June 25–30, 2019, Proceedings 2, Springer, 2019, pp. 142–156

    work page 2019

  8. [7]

    Y . He, Y . Wang, C. Qiu, Q. Lin, J. Li, Z. Ming, Blockchain-based edge computing resource allocation in iot: A deep reinforcement learning ap- proach, IEEE Internet of Things Journal 8 (4) (2020) 2226–2237

    work page 2020

Show all 46 references
  1. [8]

    Baranwal, D

    G. Baranwal, D. Kumar, D. P. Vidyarthi, Blockchain based resource al- location in cloud and distributed edge computing: A survey, Computer Communications 209 (2023) 469–498

    2023

  2. [9]

    Ghodsi, M

    A. Ghodsi, M. Zaharia, B. Hindman, A. Konwinski, S. Shenker, I. Stoica, Dominant resource fairness: Fair allocation of multiple resource types., in: Nsdi, V ol. 11, 2011, pp. 24–24

    2011

  3. [10]

    Metin, C

    S. Metin, C. ¨Ozturan, Max–min fairness based faucet design for blockchains, Future Generation Computer Systems 131 (2022) 18–27

    2022

  4. [12]

    Rejeb, K

    A. Rejeb, K. Rejeb, S. J. Simske, J. G. Keogh, Blockchain technology in the smart city: A bibliometric review, Quality & quantity (2021) 1–32

    2021

  5. [13]

    O. O. Apeh, N. I. Nwulu, Enhancing transparency and efficiency in green energy management through blockchain: A comprehensive bibliometric analysis, Energy Nexus (2025) 100405

    2025

  6. [14]

    Kumar, K

    N. Kumar, K. Kumar, A. Aeron, F. Verre, Blockchain technology in sup- ply chain management: Innovations, applications, and challenges, Telem- atics and Informatics Reports (2025) 100204

    2025

  7. [15]

    Jayakumari, S

    B. Jayakumari, S. L. Sheeba, M. Eapen, J. Anbarasi, V . Ravi, A. Suganya, M. Jawahar, E-voting system using cloud-based hybrid blockchain tech- nology, Journal of Safety Science and Resilience 5 (1) (2024) 102–109

    2024

  8. [16]

    M. U. Tariq, Revolutionizing health data management with blockchain technology: Enhancing security and efficiency in a digital era, in: Emerg- ing technologies for health literacy and medical practice, IGI Global Sci- entific Publishing, 2024, pp. 153–175

    2024

  9. [17]

    X. Wang, Y . C. Wu, Z. Ma, Blockchain in the courtroom: exploring its evidentiary significance and procedural implications in us judicial pro- cesses, Frontiers in Blockchain 7 (2024) 1306058

    2024

  10. [18]

    Q. Gan, R. Y . K. Lau, J. Hong, A critical review of blockchain applica- tions to banking and finance: a qualitative thematic analysis approach, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 37 (4) (2025) 387–403

    2025

  11. [19]

    Punia, P

    A. Punia, P. Gulia, N. S. Gill, E. Ibeke, C. Iwendi, P. K. Shukla, A sys- tematic review on blockchain-based access control systems in cloud en- vironment, Journal of Cloud Computing 13 (1) (2024) 146

    2024

  12. [20]

    W. V . Solis, J. M. Parra-Ullauri, A. Kertesz, Exploring the synergy of fog computing, blockchain, and federated learning for iot applications: A systematic literature review, IEEE Access (2024)

    2024

  13. [21]

    Nguyen, H

    T. Nguyen, H. Nguyen, T. N. Gia, Exploring the integration of edge com- puting and blockchain iot: Principles, architectures, security, and appli- cations, Journal of Network and Computer Applications (2024) 103884

    2024

  14. [22]

    Fazel, M

    E. Fazel, M. Z. Nezhad, J. Rezazadeh, M. Moradi, J. Ayoade, Iot conver- gence with machine learning & blockchain: A review, Internet of Things (2024) 101187

    2024

  15. [23]

    Haritha, S

    K. Haritha, S. S. Vellela, L. R. Vuyyuru, N. Malathi, L. Dalavai, et al., Distributed blockchain-sdn models for robust data security in cloud- integrated iot networks, in: 2024 3rd International Conference on Au- tomation, Computing and Renewable Systems (ICACRS), IEEE, 2024, ...

    2024

  16. [24]

    K. K. Tirupati, I. Khan, L. Kumar, S. H. Kendyala, A. Kumar, S. S. Chamarthy, Blockchain-driven secure communication and trust manage- ment framework for the internet of vehicles (iov), in: 2024 13th Inter- national Conference on System Modeling & Advancement in Research Trend...

    2024

  17. [25]

    Y . Gu, D. Hou, X. Wu, A cloud storage resource transaction mechanism based on smart contract, in: Proceedings of the 8th International Confer- ence on Communication and Network Security, 2018, pp. 134–138

    2018

  18. [26]

    Taghavi, J

    M. Taghavi, J. Bentahar, H. Otrok, K. Bakhtiyari, Cloudchain: A blockchain-based coopetition differential game model for cloud comput- ing, in: Service-Oriented Computing: 16th International Conference, IC- SOC 2018, Hangzhou, China, November 12-15, 2018, Proceedings 16, Sprin...

    2018

  19. [27]

    Pittl, W

    B. Pittl, W. Mach, E. Schikuta, Bazaar-blockchain: A blockchain for bazaar-based cloud markets, in: 2018 IEEE international conference on services computing (SCC), IEEE, 2018, pp. 89–96

    2018

  20. [28]

    J. Pan, J. Wang, A. Hester, I. Alqerm, Y . Liu, Y . Zhao, Edgechain: An edge-iot framework and prototype based on blockchain and smart con- tracts, IEEE Internet of Things Journal 6 (3) (2018) 4719–4732

    2018

  21. [29]

    J. Feng, F. R. Yu, Q. Pei, X. Chu, J. Du, L. Zhu, Cooperative computation offloading and resource allocation for blockchain-enabled mobile-edge computing: A deep reinforcement learning approach, IEEE Internet of Things Journal 7 (7) (2019) 6214–6228

    2019

  22. [30]

    Baniata, A

    H. Baniata, A. Anaqreh, A. Kertesz, Pf-bts: A privacy-aware fog- enhanced blockchain-assisted task scheduling, Information Processing & Management 58 (1) (2021) 102393

    2021

  23. [31]

    Wilczy ´nski, J

    A. Wilczy ´nski, J. Kołodziej, Modelling and simulation of security-aware task scheduling in cloud computing based on blockchain technology, Sim- ulation Modelling Practice and Theory 99 (2020) 102038

    2020

  24. [32]

    W. Dou, W. Tang, B. Liu, X. Xu, Q. Ni, Blockchain-based mobility-aware offloading mechanism for fog computing services, Computer Communi- cations 164 (2020) 261–273

    2020

  25. [33]

    E. L. Hahne, Round-robin scheduling for max-min fairness in data net- works, IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in communications 9 (7) (1991) 1024–1039

    1991

  26. [34]

    D. Nace, M. Pi ´oro, Max-min fairness and its applications to routing and load-balancing in communication networks: a tutorial, IEEE Communi- cations Surveys & Tutorials 10 (4) (2008) 5–17

    2008

  27. [35]

    C. A. Waldspurger, Lottery and stride scheduling: Flexible proportional- share resource management, Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1995)

    1995

  28. [36]

    Gogulan, A

    R. Gogulan, A. Kavitha, U. K. Kumar, Max min fair scheduling algo- rithm using in grid scheduling with load balancing, International Journal of Research in Computer Science 2 (3) (2012) 41

    2012

  29. [37]

    Marbach, Priority service and max-min fairness, in: Proceedings

    P. Marbach, Priority service and max-min fairness, in: Proceedings. Twenty-First Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Com- munications Societies, V ol. 1, IEEE, 2002, pp. 266–275

    2002

  30. [38]

    W. Li, X. Liu, X. Zhang, X. Zhang, A note on the dynamic dominant resource fairness mechanism, arXiv preprint arXiv:1509.07935 (2015)

    2015 arXiv

  31. [39]

    I. Kash, A. D. Procaccia, N. Shah, No agent left behind: Dynamic fair division of multiple resources, Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 51 (2014) 579–603

    2014

  32. [40]

    D. C. Parkes, A. D. Procaccia, N. Shah, Beyond dominant resource fair- ness: Extensions, limitations, and indivisibilities, ACM Transactions on Economics and Computation (TEAC) 3 (1) (2015) 1–22

    2015

  33. [41]

    Psomas, J

    C.-A. Psomas, J. Schwartz, Beyond beyond dominant resource fairness: Indivisible resource allocation in clusters, Tech Report Berkeley, Tech. Rep. (2013)

    2013

  34. [42]

    Dolev, D

    D. Dolev, D. G. Feitelson, J. Y . Halpern, R. Kupferman, N. Linial, No justified complaints: On fair sharing of multiple resources, in: proceed- ings of the 3rd Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference, 2012, pp. 68–75

    2012

  35. [43]

    Gutman, N

    A. Gutman, N. Nisan, Fair allocation without trade, arXiv preprint arXiv:1204.4286 (2012)

    2012 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Metin, blockchainFaucet (Oct

    S. Metin, blockchainFaucet (Oct. 2020). URL https://github.com/serdarmetin/ blockchainFaucet

    2020

  37. [45]

    Lamport, Time, clocks, and the ordering of events in a distributed sys- tem, Communications of the ACM 21 (7) (1978) 558–565

    L. Lamport, Time, clocks, and the ordering of events in a distributed sys- tem, Communications of the ACM 21 (7) (1978) 558–565

    1978

  38. [46]

    Hauser, Brownie documentation, accessed at 08.07.2025 (2020)

    B. Hauser, Brownie documentation, accessed at 08.07.2025 (2020). URL https://eth-brownie.readthedocs.io/_/ downloads/en/v1.3.1_a/pdf/ 10

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.