Machine Learning for Cross-Vulnerability Prediction in Smart Contracts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Smart contracts are programs that are deployed on blockchain to automate the agreements among users. It is hard to fix a security vulnerability once a smart contract is deployed. Vulnerabilities in smart contracts have raised a lot of concerns. Many automated solutions are proposed to identify these vulnerabilities. Supervised machine learning algorithms require historical data to detect vulnerabilities. These solutions will not work if the historical data for a vulnerability in question is not available. To address this problem, we have proposed to use the historical data of another vulnerability. We identify similar features among the vulnerabilities and use them to build the models. The built models are used to test smart contracts with the type of vulnerability that does not have the historical data. We have conducted experiments on 4 datasets and found that worst case $F_{1}$-score is 73% and the best case is 93% and mostly F<inf xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">1</inf>-score was more than 80%.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".