MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3181957689 · doi:10.1145/3460319.3464837

Empirical evaluation of smart contract testing: what is the best choice?

2021· article· en· W3181957689 on OpenAlexaff
Meng Ren, Zijing Yin, Fuchen Ma, Zhenyang Xu, Yu Jiang, C. P. Sun, Huizhong Li, Yan Cai

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBlockchain Technology Applications and Security
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceVulnerability (computing)Empirical researchComputer securityRisk analysis (engineering)Data science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Security of smart contracts has attracted increasing attention in recent years. Many researchers have devoted themselves to devising testing tools for vulnerability detection. Each published tool has demonstrated its effectiveness through a series of evaluations on their own experimental scenarios. However, the inconsistency of evaluation settings such as different data sets or performance metrics, may result in biased conclusion.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.337
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.714
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.663
Threshold uncertainty score0.818

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3370.714
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.007
Science and technology studies0.0020.010
Scholarly communication0.0090.016
Open science0.0060.003
Research integrity0.0060.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.080
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.261 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
DomainMethods
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations83
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBlockchain Technology Applications and SecurityFrench-language works237,207