Predicting Cryptocurrency Fraud Using ChaosNet: The Ethereum Manifestation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cryptocurrencies are in high demand now due to their volatile and untraceable nature. Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Dogecoin are just a few examples. This research seeks to identify deception and probable fraud in Ethereum transactional processes. We have developed this capability via ChaosNet, an Artificial Neural Network constructed using Generalized Luröth Series maps. Chaos has been objectively discovered in the brain at many spatiotemporal scales. Several synthetic neuronal simulations, including the Hindmarsh–Rose model, possess chaos, and individual brain neurons are known to display chaotic bursting phenomena. Although chaos is included in several Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs), for instance, in Recursively Generating Neural Networks, no ANNs exist for classical tasks entirely made up of chaoticity. ChaosNet uses the chaotic GLS neurons’ property of topological transitivity to perform classification problems on pools of data with cutting-edge performance, lowering the necessary training sample count. This synthetic neural network can perform categorization tasks by gathering a definite amount of training data. ChaosNet utilizes some of the best traits of networks composed of biological neurons, which derive from the strong chaotic activity of individual neurons, to solve complex classification tasks on par with or better than standard Artificial Neural Networks. It has been shown to require much fewer training samples. This ability of ChaosNet has been well exploited for the objective of our research. Further, in this article, ChaosNet has been integrated with several well-known ML algorithms to cater to the purposes of this study. The results obtained are better than the generic results.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".