Enhancing smart contract security using a code representation and GAN based methodology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Smart contracts are changing many business areas with blockchain technology, but they still have vulnerabilities that can cause major financial losses. Because deployed smart contracts (SCs) are irreversible once deployed, fixing these vulnerabilities before deployment is critical. This research introduces a new method that combines code embedding with Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs) to find integer overflow vulnerabilities in smart contracts. Using Abstract Syntax Trees, we can vectorize the source code of smart contracts while keeping all of the important contract characteristics and going beyond what can be achieved with conventional textual or structural analysis. Synthesizing contract vector data using GANs alleviates data scarcity and facilitates source code acquisition for training our detection system. The proposed method is very good at finding vulnerabilities because it uses both GAN discriminator feedback and vector similarity measures based on cosine and correlation coefficients. Experimental results show that our GAN-based proactive analysis method achieves up to 18.1% improvement in accuracy over baseline tools such as Oyente and sFuzz.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".