MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4382203557 · doi:10.1109/tse.2023.3289808

Self-Admitted Technical Debt in Ethereum Smart Contracts: A Large-Scale Exploratory Study

2023· article· en· W4382203557 on OpenAlexafffund
Amir M. Ebrahimi, Gustavo A. Oliva, Ahmed E. Hassan

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Software Engineering · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBlockchain Technology Applications and Security
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsTechnical debtComputer scienceWorkaroundContext (archaeology)Code (set theory)ImplementationData scienceSoftware engineeringSoftware developmentProgramming languageSoftware

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Programmable blockchain platforms such as Ethereum offer unique benefits to application development, including a decentralized infrastructure, tamper-proof transactions, and auditability. These benefits enable new types of applications that can bring competitive advantage to several business segments. Nonetheless, the pressure of time-to-market combined with relatively immature development technologies (e.g., the Solidity programming language), lack of high-quality training resources, and an unclear roadmap for Ethereum creates a context that favors the introduction of technical debt (e.g., code hacks, workarounds, and suboptimal implementations) into application code. In this paper, we study self-admitted technical debt (SATD) in smart contracts. SATD refers to technical debt that is explicitly acknowledged in the source code by developers via code comments. We extract 726 k real-world contracts from Ethereum and apply both quantitative and qualitative methods in order to (i) determine SATD prevalence, (ii) understand the relationship between code cloning and SATD prevalence, and (iii) uncover the different categories of SATD. Our findings reveal that, while SATD is not a widespread phenomenon (1.5% of real-world contracts contain SATD), SATD does occur in extremely relevant contracts (e.g., multi-million contracts). We also observed a strong connection between SATD prevalence and code cloning activities, leading us to conclude that the former cannot be reliably studied without taking the latter into consideration. Finally, we produced a taxonomy for SATD that consists of 6 major and 26 minor categories. We note that several minor categories are bound to the domain of blockchain and smart contracts, including gas-inefficient implementations and Solidity-induced workarounds. Based on our results, we derive a set of practical recommendations for contract developers and introduce open research questions to guide future research on the topic.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.063
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.072

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.063
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.005
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.219 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
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

Citations13
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Software EngineeringSame topicBlockchain Technology Applications and SecurityFrench-language works237,207