iContractBot: A Chatbot for Smart Contracts’ Specification and Code Generation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently, Blockchain technology adoption has expanded to many application areas due to the evolution of smart contracts. However, developing smart contracts is non-trivial and challenging due to the lack of tools and expertise in this field. A promising solution to overcome this issue is to use Model-Driven Engineering (MDE), however, using models still involves a learning curve and might not be suitable for non-technical users. To tackle this challenge, chatbot or conversational interfaces can be used to assess the non-technical users to specify a smart contract in gradual and interactive manner. In this paper, we propose iContractBot, a chatbot for modeling and developing smart contracts. Moreover, we investigate how to integrate iContractBot with iContractML, a domainspecific modeling language for developing smart contracts, and instantiate intention models from the chatbot. The iContractBot framework provides a domain-specific language (DSL) based on the user intention and performs model-to-text transformation to generate the smart contract code. A smart contract use case is presented to demonstrate how iContractBot can be utilized for creating models and generating the deployment artifacts for smart contracts based on a simple conversation.
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 | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.005 |
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".