MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401110041 · doi:10.1109/wfpst58552.2024.00015

Change Address Detection in Bitcoin using Hierarchical Clustering

2024· article· en· W4401110041 on OpenAlexaff
Fatma Najjar, Rodrigue Tonga Naha, Mikaeil Mayeli Feridani, Oumayma Dekhil, Kaiwen Zhang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Stream Mining Techniques
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCluster analysisComputer scienceHierarchical clusteringArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The widespread adoption and success of blockchain, particularly Bitcoin, was influenced by the promise of decentralization and anonymity. Sadly, these same characteristics have made it attractive to illegal activities, requiring careful oversight and targeted interventions. In order to mitigate illicit usage of this technology, we need to analyze and de-anonymize transactions occurring in the blockchain. For that purpose, change addresses identification is a promising technique, since change addresses can be associated to the inputs of the same transaction since they are meant to hold leftover funds for the same user. In this article, we propose a new approach of change address detection using hierarchical clustering. First, we developed a new method for data extraction of connected transactions. After collecting the transaction, we combined multiple input heuristics with a hierarchical clustering algorithm at the transaction level to study similarities in usage patterns between inputs and outputs. After applying our detection model, we analyze the generating cluster and evaluate the performance of our solution in terms of F1-score, result accuracy, recall and precision.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.082
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicData Stream Mining TechniquesFrench-language works237,207