Detecting Malicious Ethereum Entities via Application of Machine Learning Classification
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
Malicious activities such as scams and frauds have imposed high costs for financial systems. The advent of blockchain-based cryptocurrencies such as Ethereum provides unprecedented characteristics. On one hand, the pseudonymity of the blockchain allows criminals to hide their actual identities, which is an appealing feature for conducting malicious activities. On the other hand, the public data of blockchain sets forth the opportunity for comprehensive forensic analysis. In this paper, we present a novel framework to identify malicious entities in the Ethereum blockchain network. The proposed framework composes of an efficient method for extracting a set of features from the Ethereum blockchain data to represent transactional behavior of entities. Our proposed solutions for detecting malicious entities employ variations of Logistic Regression, Support Vector Machine, Random Forest, and other ensemble methods such as Stacking and AdaBoost Classifier. The ensemble methods show high performance with F <inf xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">1</inf> score of 0.996 in average. The results also imply that the proposed method of feature extraction is fairly efficient in presenting the network characteristics.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 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 it