Verified Development and Deployment of Multiple Interacting Smart Contracts with VeriSolid
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Smart contracts enable the creation of decentralized applications which often handle assets of large value. These decentralized applications are frequently built on multiple interacting contracts. While the underlying platform ensures the correctness of smart contract execution, today developers continue struggling to create functionally correct contracts, as evidenced by a number of security incidents in the recent past. Even though these incidents often exploit contract interaction, prior work on smart contract verification, vulnerability discovery, and secure development typically considers only individual contracts. This paper proposes an approach for the correct-by-design development and deployment of multiple interacting smart contracts by introducing a graphical notation (called deployment diagrams) for specifying possible interactions between contract types. Based on this notation, it later presents a framework for the automated verification, generation, and deployment of interacting contracts that conform to a deployment diagram. As an added benefit, the proposed framework provides a clear separation of concerns between the internal contract behavior and contract interaction, which allows one to compositionally model and analyze systems of interacting smart contracts efficiently.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".