Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 2 minor 46 references

SCOPE-FL: A Strategy-proof Chain-based Optimal pareto efficient Federated Learning System

T0 review · 3 major / 2 minor · reviewed 2026-06-27 · grok-4.3

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

Pith's one-line read SCOPE-FL models hierarchical federated learning client selection as a school choice problem and solves it with the Top Trading Cycle algorithm on blockchain to guarantee both Pareto efficiency and strategy-proofness.

desk verdict SCOPE-FL maps HFL client selection to TTC school choice plus blockchain and OR-Shapley, but the abstract gives no evidence the theoretical guarantees survive the translation or that the experiments are robust. read the letter →

arxiv 2606.18384 v1 pith:D2R3S6L7 submitted 2026-06-16 cs.LG cs.DC

Seyed Salar Ghazi , Kaiwen Zhang , Mehdi feizi , Hans-Arno Jacobsen This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGcs.DC
keywords hierarchicalfederatedlearningclientselectionParetoefficiencystrategy-proofnessTopTradingCycleblockchainsmartcontractsShapleyvalueapproximation
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 proposes SCOPE-FL to fix strategic inefficiencies in hierarchical federated learning client selection. Current methods favor stability and allow participants to misreport preferences, producing worse overall outcomes. SCOPE-FL recasts selection as a two-sided school choice problem solved by the Top Trading Cycle algorithm, which delivers both Pareto efficiency and strategy-proofness. The full process runs inside blockchain smart contracts for tamper-proof enforcement, paired with an approximated Shapley value for proportional rewards. Experiments on MNIST, Fashion-MNIST, and CIFAR-10 show gains in accuracy, convergence speed, and reward fairness over prior methods while keeping latency comparable.

What carries the argument

The Top Trading Cycle algorithm applied to a two-sided school choice formulation of client selection, executed on blockchain smart contracts to enforce the properties in practice.

What would settle it

A controlled experiment in which clients submit false preference reports and the resulting allocation is shown to be Pareto dominated by another feasible allocation that would have been chosen under truthful reporting.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

SCOPE-FL formulates client selection as a two-sided school choice problem solved through the Top Trading Cycle (TTC) algorithm that simultaneously guarantees PE and SP. For reward distribution, SCOPE-FL employs a scalable Shapley value approximation based on One-Round Reconstruction (OR), ensuring compensation proportional to each client's contribution. The entire mechanism executes via blockchain smart contracts, providing the tamper-proof environment required for the SP guarantees to hold in practice.

Load-bearing premise

That the abstract properties of TTC in school choice problems survive translation into the concrete costs, latencies, and contribution values of actual federated learning participants.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Clients have no incentive to misrepresent preferences, so reported data matches true costs and capabilities.
  • Resource allocations reach Pareto efficiency, improving overall model accuracy and convergence rate.
  • Rewards scale with contribution via the one-round Shapley approximation without requiring full recomputation.
  • Blockchain execution keeps communication latency similar to existing methods while lowering overhead at larger scales.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same matching approach could be tested in other resource-allocation settings where participants hold private information about costs.
  • Dynamic client availability over multiple rounds would require an extension of the static school-choice model.
  • Tamper-proof execution opens the possibility of third-party audits of selection fairness in regulated environments.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper proposes SCOPE-FL, a synchronous hierarchical federated learning (HFL) system that models client selection as a two-sided school choice problem solved by the Top Trading Cycle (TTC) algorithm to simultaneously guarantee Pareto efficiency (PE) and strategy-proofness (SP). Rewards are distributed via a One-Round Reconstruction (OR) approximation to Shapley values, and the full mechanism is executed through blockchain smart contracts to enforce the properties in practice. Experiments on MNIST, Fashion-MNIST, and CIFAR-10 claim superior model accuracy, convergence rate, and reward efficiency compared to DA, IAS, and other baselines, with communication latency comparable to DA and lower blockchain overhead at scale.

Significance. If the TTC mapping from HFL attributes (costs, latencies, contributions) to school-choice preferences preserves the standard PE/SP guarantees and the blockchain layer actually enforces truthful reporting, the work would supply a theoretically grounded, incentive-compatible client selection mechanism for HFL. The combination of mechanism design with blockchain execution and an efficient Shapley approximation is potentially valuable for practical federated systems if the modeling assumptions hold.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract / client selection formulation] Abstract and client-selection section: the claim that modeling HFL client selection directly as a two-sided school-choice instance allows TTC to inherit its standard PE and SP properties is asserted without a derivation or explicit verification that the concrete HFL costs, latencies, and model-update contributions satisfy the domain restrictions under which TTC is known to be PE and SP.
  2. [Evaluation] Evaluation section: outperformance is reported on three datasets without error bars, statistical tests, or ablation of the TTC mapping versus the OR reward approximation, so it is impossible to determine whether the claimed gains in accuracy and reward efficiency are robust or attributable to the proposed mechanism.
  3. [Blockchain layer] Blockchain enforcement paragraph: the assertion that smart-contract execution supplies the tamper-proof environment required for SP to hold in practice is not accompanied by any formal argument or implementation detail showing that the on-chain TTC execution prevents the misreporting that SP is meant to deter.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: 'pareto efficient' should be 'Pareto-efficient' for standard capitalization.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: the statement that blockchain overhead is 'significantly lower than DA at scale' should specify the participant counts or network sizes at which the comparison holds.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments. We address each major comment below and indicate planned revisions.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract / client selection formulation] Abstract and client-selection section: the claim that modeling HFL client selection directly as a two-sided school-choice instance allows TTC to inherit its standard PE and SP properties is asserted without a derivation or explicit verification that the concrete HFL costs, latencies, and model-update contributions satisfy the domain restrictions under which TTC is known to be PE and SP.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the manuscript asserts inheritance of PE and SP from TTC without an explicit derivation verifying that HFL-derived preferences (from costs, latencies, and contributions) satisfy the required domain conditions such as strict ordering. In the revision we will add a subsection deriving the preference mapping and confirming that the HFL instance meets the standard TTC assumptions, including a short proof sketch. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Evaluation] Evaluation section: outperformance is reported on three datasets without error bars, statistical tests, or ablation of the TTC mapping versus the OR reward approximation, so it is impossible to determine whether the claimed gains in accuracy and reward efficiency are robust or attributable to the proposed mechanism.

    Authors: The referee correctly notes the absence of error bars, statistical tests, and ablations. We will revise the evaluation section to report results with error bars from repeated runs, include statistical significance tests, and add an ablation isolating the TTC client-selection component from the OR reward approximation. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Blockchain layer] Blockchain enforcement paragraph: the assertion that smart-contract execution supplies the tamper-proof environment required for SP to hold in practice is not accompanied by any formal argument or implementation detail showing that the on-chain TTC execution prevents the misreporting that SP is meant to deter.

    Authors: We agree that a dedicated argument linking on-chain TTC execution to prevention of misreporting is missing. The revised manuscript will expand the blockchain section with a concise formal argument showing how smart-contract immutability and consensus enforce truthful preference reporting, thereby realizing the SP guarantee in practice. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity identified

full rationale

The paper applies the standard TTC algorithm from the external school-choice literature (Shapley-Scarf) to model HFL client selection, inheriting PE/SP guarantees from that established result rather than constructing them internally. Blockchain enforcement and the OR-based Shapley approximation are presented as implementation choices without any quoted equations or self-citations showing that a claimed prediction reduces to a fitted input or definitional loop by construction. No self-definitional, fitted-input, or uniqueness-imported steps appear in the derivation chain.

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

The central claims rest on the standard properties of the TTC algorithm in two-sided matching and on the assumption that blockchain smart contracts deliver tamper-proof execution; no new entities are postulated and the Shapley approximation is presented as a computational technique rather than a fitted parameter.

assumptions (2)
  • standard math TTC algorithm guarantees Pareto efficiency and strategy-proofness when client selection is modeled as a two-sided school choice problem
    Invoked in the abstract to justify simultaneous PE and SP for the proposed client selection mechanism.
  • domain assumption Blockchain smart contracts provide a tamper-proof environment sufficient for SP guarantees to hold in practice
    Stated in the abstract as the reason the mechanism can be executed without strategic deviation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of SCOPE-FL: A Strategy-proof Chain-based Optimal pareto efficient Federated Learning System." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/D2R3S6L7

@misc{pith2026260618384,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: SCOPE-FL: A Strategy-proof Chain-based Optimal pareto efficient Federated Learning System},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/D2R3S6L7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2606.18384}
}
read the original abstract

Hierarchical Federated Learning (HFL) enables scalable collaborative model training across distributed devices while preserving data privacy. However, existing HFL client selection mechanisms suffer from a fundamental strategic inefficiency. By prioritizing stability over Pareto efficiency (PE), they produce suboptimal resource allocations, and without strategy proofness (SP), participants are incentivized to misrepresent their true preferences, both failures degrading system overall welfare in the Pareto sense in practice. To address it, we propose SCOPE-FL (Strategy-proof Chain-based Optimal pareto efficient Federated Learning), a synchronous HFL framework that formulates client selection as a two-sided school choice problem solved through the Top Trading Cycle (TTC) algorithm that simultaneously guarantees PE and SP. For reward distribution, SCOPE-FL employs a scalable Shapley value approximation based on One-Round Reconstruction (OR), ensuring compensation proportional to each client's contribution. The entire mechanism executes via blockchain smart contracts, providing the tamper-proof environment required for the SP guarantees to hold in practice. A comprehensive evaluation on MNIST, Fashion-MNIST, and CIFAR-10 demonstrates that SCOPE-FL outperforms state-of-the-art approaches, including DA, IAS, and other methods across model accuracy, convergence rate, and reward efficiency, while achieving communication latency comparable to DA and blockchain overhead significantly lower than DA at scale.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.18384 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. SCOPE-FL Architecture and since a TTC cycle forms only when a server’s highest￾priority remaining client points back to it, the mechanism structurally channels high-contribution, low-cost clients to￾ward the servers that value them most. Whether this translates into strong system-level outcomes is an empirical question, which evaluation section answers affirmatively; client-side Pareto efficiency coincides with the … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Accuracy Results of SCOPE-FL Compared to The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Accuracy Results of SCOPE-FL Compared to The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Cumulative Rounds Saved by TTC vs Baselines [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Average Obtained Reward by Clients Across Rounds [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Average Latency Across Rounds for Different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Gas Consumption Comparison Between Three [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Federated learning design and functional models: Survey,

    J. Ayeelyan, S. Utomo, A. Rouniyar, H.-C. Hsu, and P.-A. Hsiung, “Federated learning design and functional models: Survey,”Artificial Intelligence Review, vol. 58, no. 1, p. 21, 2024

    2024

  2. [2]

    Federated learning: From theory to practice,

    A. Jung, “Federated learning: From theory to practice,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.19183, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  3. [3]

    Spyker: Asynchronous multi-server federated learning for geo-distributed clients,

    Y . Zuo, B. Cox, L. Y . Chen, and J. Decouchant, “Spyker: Asynchronous multi-server federated learning for geo-distributed clients,” inProceed- ings of the 25th International Middleware Conference, 2024, pp. 367– 378

    2024

  4. [4]

    Towards bilateral client selection in federated learning using matching game theory,

    O. Wehbi, S. Arisdakessian, O. A. Wahab, H. Otrok, S. Otoum, and A. Mourad, “Towards bilateral client selection in federated learning using matching game theory,” inGLOBECOM 2022-2022 IEEE Global Communications Conference. IEEE, 2022, pp. 01–06

    2022

  5. [5]

    Flight: A faas-based framework for complex and hierarchical federated learning,

    N. Hudson, V . Hayot-Sasson, Y . Babuji, M. Baughman, J. G. Pauloski, R. Chard, I. Foster, and K. Chard, “Flight: A faas-based framework for complex and hierarchical federated learning,”Future Generation Computer Systems, p. 107998, 2025

    2025

  6. [6]

    Client selection in federated learning: A dynamic matching-based incentive mechanism,

    S. S. Yellampalli, M. Chalupa, J. Wang, H. J. Song, X. Zhang, H. Yue, and M. Pan, “Client selection in federated learning: A dynamic matching-based incentive mechanism,” in2024 International Conference on Computing, Networking and Communications (ICNC). IEEE Computer Society, 2024, pp. 989–993. 17

    2024

  7. [7]

    Optimality and stability in federated learning: A game-theoretic approach,

    K. Donahue and J. Kleinberg, “Optimality and stability in federated learning: A game-theoretic approach,”Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 34, pp. 1287–1298, 2021

    2021

  8. [8]

    Bichler,Market design: a linear programming approach to auctions and matching

    M. Bichler,Market design: a linear programming approach to auctions and matching. Cambridge University Press, 2017

    2017

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    Haeringer,Market design: auctions and matching

    G. Haeringer,Market design: auctions and matching. MIT Press, 2018

    2018

  2. [10]

    Federated learning using game strategies: State- of-the-art and future trends,

    R. Gupta and J. Gupta, “Federated learning using game strategies: State- of-the-art and future trends,”Computer Networks, vol. 225, p. 109650, 2023

    2023

  3. [11]

    A systematic review of federated learning incentive mechanisms and associated security challenges,

    A. Ali, I. Ilahi, A. Qayyum, I. Mohammed, A. Al-Fuqaha, and J. Qadir, “A systematic review of federated learning incentive mechanisms and associated security challenges,”Computer Science Review, vol. 50, p. 100593, 2023

    2023

  4. [12]

    Profit allocation for federated learning,

    T. Song, Y . Tong, and S. Wei, “Profit allocation for federated learning,” in2019 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data). IEEE, 2019, pp. 2577–2586

    2019

  5. [13]

    Block-racs: Towards reputation- aware client selection and monetization mechanism for federated learn- ing,

    Z. Batool, K. Zhang, and M. Toews, “Block-racs: Towards reputation- aware client selection and monetization mechanism for federated learn- ing,”ACM SIGAPP Applied Computing Review, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 49– 65, 2023

    2023

  6. [14]

    Participant selection for hierar- chical federated learning in edge clouds,

    X. Wei, J. Liu, X. Shi, and Y . Wang, “Participant selection for hierar- chical federated learning in edge clouds,” in2022 IEEE International Conference on Networking, Architecture and Storage (NAS). IEEE, 2022, pp. 1–8

    2022

  7. [15]

    School choice: A mechanism design approach,

    A. Abdulkadiro ˘glu and T. S¨onmez, “School choice: A mechanism design approach,”American economic review, vol. 93, no. 3, pp. 729–747, 2003

    2003

  8. [16]

    Robust minimal instability of the top trad- ing cycles mechanism,

    B. Do ˘gan and L. Ehlers, “Robust minimal instability of the top trad- ing cycles mechanism,”American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 556–582, 2022

    2022

  9. [17]

    An efficient algorithm for the “optimal

    R. W. Irving, P. Leather, and D. Gusfield, “An efficient algorithm for the “optimal” stable marriage,”Journal of the ACM (JACM), vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 532–543, 1987

    1987

  10. [18]

    A comprehensive survey on client selection strategies in federated learning,

    J. Li, T. Chen, and S. Teng, “A comprehensive survey on client selection strategies in federated learning,”Computer Networks, vol. 251, p. 110663, 2024

    2024

  11. [19]

    Fairness-aware client selection for federated learning,

    Y . Shi, Z. Liu, Z. Shi, and H. Yu, “Fairness-aware client selection for federated learning,” in2023 IEEE international conference on multimedia and expo (ICME). IEEE, 2023, pp. 324–329

    2023

  12. [20]

    Client selection in federated learning based on gradients importance,

    O. Marnissi, H. E. Hammouti, and E. H. Bergou, “Client selection in federated learning based on gradients importance,” inAIP Conference Proceedings, vol. 3034, no. 1. AIP Publishing LLC, 2024, p. 100005

    2024

  13. [21]

    Deep-reinforcement-learning-assisted client selection in nonorthogonal- multiple-access-based federated learning,

    R. Albelaihi, A. Alasandagutti, L. Yu, J. Yao, and X. Sun, “Deep-reinforcement-learning-assisted client selection in nonorthogonal- multiple-access-based federated learning,”IEEE Internet of Things Jour- nal, vol. 10, no. 17, pp. 15 515–15 525, 2023

    2023

  14. [22]

    Towards mutual trust-based matching for federated learn- ing client selection,

    O. Wehbi, O. A. Wahab, A. Mourad, H. Otrok, H. Alkhzaimi, and M. Guizani, “Towards mutual trust-based matching for federated learn- ing client selection,” in2023 International Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing (IWCMC). IEEE, 2023, pp. 1112–1117

    2023

  15. [23]

    Context-aware online client selection for hierarchical federated learning,

    Z. Qu, R. Duan, L. Chen, J. Xu, Z. Lu, and Y . Liu, “Context-aware online client selection for hierarchical federated learning,”IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems, vol. 33, no. 12, pp. 4353–4367, 2022

    2022

  16. [24]

    Incentivized federated learning: A survey,

    A. K. Nair, S. Coleri, J. Sahoo, L. R. Cenkeramaddi, and E. D. Raj, “Incentivized federated learning: A survey,”IEEE Transactions on Emerging Topics in Computational Intelligence, 2025

    2025

  17. [25]

    Dualgfl: Federated learning with a dual-level coalition-auction game,

    X. Chen, X. Zhou, S. Zhang, and M. Sun, “Dualgfl: Federated learning with a dual-level coalition-auction game,” inProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 39, no. 15, 2025, pp. 15 904– 15 912

    2025

  18. [26]

    Resource allocation and pricing for multi-server multi-model federated learning based on market equilibrium,

    M. Diamanti, A. B. Rahman, P. Charatsaris, E. E. Tsiropoulou, and S. Papavassiliou, “Resource allocation and pricing for multi-server multi-model federated learning based on market equilibrium,”Future Generation Computer Systems, p. 108055, 2025

    2025

  19. [27]

    Multi-uav-assisted federated learning for energy-aware distributed edge training,

    J. Tang, J. Nie, Y . Zhang, Z. Xiong, W. Jiang, and M. Guizani, “Multi-uav-assisted federated learning for energy-aware distributed edge training,”IEEE Transactions on Network and Service Management, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 280–294, 2023

    2023

  20. [28]

    Hierarchical federated learning in multi-hop cluster-based vanets,

    M. S. HaghighiFard and S. Coleri, “Hierarchical federated learning in multi-hop cluster-based vanets,”IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, 2025

    2025

  21. [29]

    Hierarchical federated learning with momentum acceleration in multi-tier networks,

    Z. Yang, S. Fu, W. Bao, D. Yuan, and A. Y . Zomaya, “Hierarchical federated learning with momentum acceleration in multi-tier networks,” IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems, vol. 34, no. 10, pp. 2629–2641, 2023

    2023

  22. [30]

    Blockchain-empowered federated learning: Benefits, challenges, and solutions,

    Z. Cai, J. Chen, Y . Fan, Z. Zheng, and K. Li, “Blockchain-empowered federated learning: Benefits, challenges, and solutions,”IEEE Transac- tions on Big Data, 2025

    2025

  23. [31]

    Decentralized federated learning based on blockchain: concepts, framework, and challenges,

    H. Zhang, S. Jiang, and S. Xuan, “Decentralized federated learning based on blockchain: concepts, framework, and challenges,”Computer Communications, vol. 216, pp. 140–150, 2024

    2024

  24. [32]

    Adapting security and decen- tralized knowledge enhancement in federated learning using blockchain technology: literature review,

    M. M. Orabi, O. Emam, and H. Fahmy, “Adapting security and decen- tralized knowledge enhancement in federated learning using blockchain technology: literature review,”Journal of Big Data, vol. 12, no. 1, p. 55, 2025

    2025

  25. [33]

    Blockchain-based framework for scalable and incentivized federated learning,

    B. Wu and O. Seneviratne, “Blockchain-based framework for scalable and incentivized federated learning,” inCompanion Proceedings of the ACM on Web Conference 2025, 2025, pp. 1761–1767

    2025

  26. [34]

    An efficient blockchain assisted reputation aware decentralized federated learning framework,

    H. Kasyap, A. Manna, and S. Tripathy, “An efficient blockchain assisted reputation aware decentralized federated learning framework,”IEEE Transactions on Network and Service Management, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 2771–2782, 2022

    2022

  27. [35]

    Flwrbc: Incentive mechanism design for federated learning by using blockchain,

    N. T. Cam and V . T. Kiet, “Flwrbc: Incentive mechanism design for federated learning by using blockchain,”IEEE Access, vol. 11, pp. 107 855–107 866, 2023

    2023

  28. [36]

    A multi-center federated learning mechanism based on consortium blockchain for data secure sharing,

    B. Wang, Z. Tian, X. Liu, Y . Xia, W. She, and W. Liu, “A multi-center federated learning mechanism based on consortium blockchain for data secure sharing,”Knowledge-Based Systems, vol. 310, p. 112962, 2025

    2025

  29. [37]

    Client-edge-cloud hierarchical federated learning,

    L. Liu, J. Zhang, S. Song, and K. B. Letaief, “Client-edge-cloud hierarchical federated learning,” inICC 2020-2020 IEEE international conference on communications (ICC). IEEE, 2020, pp. 1–6

    2020

  30. [38]

    A review of blockchain platforms based on the scalability, security and decentralization trilemma

    J. Werth, M. H. Berenjestanaki, H. R. Barzegar, N. El Ioini, and C. Pahl, “A review of blockchain platforms based on the scalability, security and decentralization trilemma.”ICEIS (1), pp. 146–155, 2023

    2023

  31. [39]

    Improved trustchain for lightweight devices,

    S. S. Ghazi and H. Amintoosi, “Improved trustchain for lightweight devices,” in2022 12th International Conference on Computer and Knowledge Engineering (ICCKE). IEEE, 2022, pp. 085–091

    2022

  32. [40]

    On the suitability of improved trustchain for smartphones

    S. S. Ghazi, H. Amintoosi, and S. P. Moakhar, “On the suitability of improved trustchain for smartphones.”ISeCure, vol. 14, no. 3, 2022

    2022

  33. [41]

    Kurtosis github page,

    ethpandaops contributors, “Kurtosis github page,” https://github.com/eth pandaops/ethereum-package, 2026, accessed: 2026-02-03

    2026

  34. [42]

    Cifar-10 dataset,

    Alex Krizhevsky, “Cifar-10 dataset,” https://www.cs.toronto.edu/ ∼kriz/ cifar.html, 2026, accessed: 2026-02-15

    2026

  35. [43]

    Fashion-mnist: a novel image dataset for benchmarking machine learning algorithms,

    H. Xiao, K. Rasul, and R. V ollgraf, “Fashion-mnist: a novel image dataset for benchmarking machine learning algorithms,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1708.07747, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Deferred acceptance algorithms: History, theory, practice, and open questions,

    A. E. Roth, “Deferred acceptance algorithms: History, theory, practice, and open questions,”international Journal of game Theory, vol. 36, no. 3-4, pp. 537–569, 2008

    2008

  37. [45]

    A school choice compromise: between immediate and deferred acceptance,

    P. Harless, “A school choice compromise: between immediate and deferred acceptance,” 2014

    2014

  38. [46]

    Ethereum: A secure decentralised generalised trans- action ledger shanghai version,

    GA VIN WOOD, “Ethereum: A secure decentralised generalised trans- action ledger shanghai version,” https://ethereum.github.io/yellowpaper /paper.pdf, 2025, accessed: 2026-02-15. 18 APPENDIX TTC STEP-BY-STEPEXAMPLE To demonstrate the algorithm’s steps, we will outline its proce...

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed June 27, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.