Bibliographic record
Abstract
Distributed ledger technologies (DLTs) based on Directed Acyclic Graphs (DAGs) have been gaining much attention due to their performance advantage over the traditional blockchain. IOTA is an example of DAG-based DLT that has shown its significance in the Internet of Things (IoT) environment. Despite that, IOTA is vulnerable to double-spend attacks, which threaten the immutability of the ledger. In this paper, we propose an efficient yet simple method for detecting a parasite chain, which is one form of attempting a double-spend attack in the IOTA network. In our method, a score function measuring the importance of each transaction in the IOTA network is employed. Any abrupt change in the importance of a transaction is reflected in the 1st and 2nd order derivatives of this score function, and therefore used in the calculation of an anomaly score. Due to how the score function is formulated, this anomaly score can be used in the detection of a particular type of parasite chain, characterized by sudden changes in the in-degree of a transaction in the IOTA graph. The experimental results demonstrate that the proposed method is accurate and linearly scalable in the number of edges in the network.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".