TABS: Transforming automatically BPMN models into blockchain smart contracts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research on blockchains addresses multiple issues, with one being the automated creation of smart contracts. Developing smart contract methods is more difficult than mainstream software development as the underlying blockchain infrastructure poses additional complexity. We report on a new approach to developing smart contracts with the objective of automating the process to increase developer efficiency and reduce the risk of errors introduced by software developers. To support industry adoption, we use Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN) modeling to describe an application while targeting applications in the trade vertical. We describe a system that transforms a BPMN model into a multi-modal model that combines Discrete Event (DE) modeling for concurrency with Hierarchical State Machines (HSMs) to represent application functionality. Then, further transformations are used to transform the DE-HSM model into methods in smart contracts. The system lets the modeler decide which of the independent patterns should be transformed into methods of a separate smart contract that is deployed on a sidechain for the purpose of (i) reducing processing costs and/or (ii) providing privacy so that other participants in the smart contract do not have visibility into the processing of the pattern. We also briefly describe a proof-of-concept tool we built to demonstrate the feasibility of our approach.
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 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.004 |
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".