Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 43 references

FinML-Chain: A Blockchain-Integrated Dataset for Enhanced Financial Machine Learning

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A blockchain-integrated dataset framework merges on-chain Ethereum blocks with off-chain Discord sentiment and demonstrates that deep neural networks can predict next-block gas usage accurately enough to motivate a proactive EIP-1559 fee…

desk verdict Useful open dataset and pipeline for blockchain finance, but the forecasting evidence does not yet support the proactive EIP-1559 claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.16277 v1 pith:A2XS4BID submitted 2024-11-25 econ.GN cs.CEcs.CRq-fin.CPq-fin.ECstat.ML

Jingfeng Chen , Wanlin Deng , Dangxing Chen , Luyao Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification econ.GNcs.CEcs.CRq-fin.CPq-fin.ECstat.ML
keywords blockchaindatasetEIP-1559gasusagepredictionfinancialmachinelearningmonotonicityconstraintssentimentanalysisNeuralAdditiveModelon-chainandoff-chaindata
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper claims that a framework merging high-frequency on-chain Ethereum data with low-frequency off-chain Discord sentiment produces a benchmark dataset for financial machine learning, and demonstrates the framework's value by predicting next-block gas usage accurately enough to motivate a proactive version of the EIP-1559 transaction fee mechanism. If this is right, Ethereum's base fee could be adjusted based on predicted demand for the upcoming block instead of only reacting to past congestion, and the open-sourced pipeline would let the dataset grow continuously as new blocks are produced. The authors report that a deep neural network achieves the lowest mean squared error across most trials, that monotonicity constraints can be imposed without harming predictive loss, and that sentiment features give only marginal accuracy gains, mainly during the ARB airdrop period.

What carries the argument

The central object is the framework's data-fusion pipeline: Ethereum block-level fields (timestamp, gas limit, gas used, base fee) are aligned with Discord community sentiment scored by FinBERT, producing time-stamped rows with normalized target $y$ and features $\alpha = \text{gas used}/\text{gas limit}$ and $\beta = \text{base fee}$ over $k=1,2,3$ previous blocks. The other load-bearing mechanism is the modified weak pairwise monotonicity constraint, which requires that changing a more recent $\alpha$ value by a fixed amount changes the prediction at least as much as changing an older $\alpha$ by the same amount; this encodes recency weighting directly into a Neural Additive Model, giving the network an interpretability guarantee without extra loss.

What would settle it

Train the best DNN on one period (for example, the ARB airdrop window) and evaluate one-block-ahead predictions on the other period, comparing the mean squared error against the trivial baseline that repeats the previous block's gas usage; if the model does not beat that baseline out-of-period, the claim that the dataset enables proactive fee adjustment fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that an integrated on-chain/off-chain dataset can support reliable prediction of the next block's normalized gas usage, defined as the deviation of gas used from the gas target, $y=(\text{gas used}-\text{gas target})/\text{gas target}$, with DNN-based models reaching MSE around 0.10–0.18 across both an airdrop-heavy period and a normal period. The paper further shows that the Neural Additive Model can satisfy a weak pairwise monotonicity constraint over the $\alpha=\text{gas used}/\text{gas limit}$ feature for up to three historical timesteps without degrading the loss, making the predictor transparent enough for mechanism design; off-chain sentiment, processed through FinBERT and averaged hourly or daily, produces at best marginal improvements. Taken together, the authors read these results as establishing the dataset as a reusable benchmark and as evidence that proactive fee adjustment is a tractable research direction.

Load-bearing premise

The evaluation assumes that being accurate on held-out chunks of the same one-month period is evidence the models will stay accurate on future, never-seen periods, so the experiments do not by themselves prove that proactive fee adjustment would work.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If next-block gas usage can be predicted at the reported accuracy, the EIP-1559 base-fee rule could be augmented with a feed-forward term that pre-adjusts fees before congestion materializes, reducing fee volatility.
  • Because the pipeline and sample data are open-sourced, new blocks and new Discord text can be appended continuously, making the benchmark self-extending rather than a fixed snapshot.
  • The monotonicity result provides a reusable template for imposing recency-based interpretability on neural time-series models in settings where regulators or users demand explainability.
  • The small sentiment effect suggests that averaged community text is a weak signal for near-term gas demand, so future versions should focus on finer-grained message selection or event-driven features.
  • The finding that DNN maintains accuracy in both airdrop and normal periods indicates the dataset supports model comparison across volatile and stable regimes, useful for benchmarking.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A direct consequence the paper leaves implicit is that the same on/off-chain fusion design could be applied to other utilization-target mechanisms, such as the blob fee market introduced by EIP-4844, where proactive demand forecasts could smooth data-availability fees.
  • A testable extension would be to compare the NAM with monotonicity against an explicit exponential moving average of gas usage; if the two perform identically out-of-period, the constraint is essentially learning an EMA, which would clarify what the model adds.
  • The paper's split into airdrop and normal periods invites a transfer experiment: training solely on the airdrop period and testing on the normal period would reveal whether the models generalize across regimes, a stronger test than within-period held-out MSE.
  • Reporting the MSE of a persistence baseline (predicting that next block's gas usage equals the current block's, perhaps adjusted through the EIP-1559 formula) would put the reported 0.10–0.18 numbers in context, since part of the signal comes from the mechanism's own Markov structure.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper introduces FinML-Chain, a framework and open-source dataset that integrates high-frequency Ethereum on-chain data (gas limit, gas used, base fee) with low-frequency off-chain Discord sentiment data, intended as a benchmark for financial machine learning. The motivating application is proactive EIP-1559 fee adjustment: the authors define a normalized gas-usage target y = (gas_used - gas_target)/gas_target and predict it from previous blocks' gas-utilization ratio α and base fee β, optionally augmented with sentiment features. They report experiments with linear regression, DNN, XGBoost, and LSTM, plus a Neural Additive Model with monotonicity constraints and FinBERT sentiment features. The main claims are that the dataset supports reliable gas-usage prediction, that DNN performs best in 23 of 24 trials, that sentiment provides marginal gains, and that monotonicity constraints improve model transparency without harming loss. All data and pipeline code are released.

Significance. If the empirical validation were adequate, the paper would make a useful contribution: it offers a reproducible, modular, extensible dataset combining on-chain and off-chain signals, and it identifies a concrete mechanism-design question (proactive EIP-1559) that the dataset can serve. The open-sourcing of the pipeline and sample data is a genuine strength, as is the focus on a real economic mechanism rather than a purely predictive benchmark. However, the current experiments do not establish the central claim of 'reliable future gas demand predictions': there are no baselines, no uncertainty quantification, no out-of-period evaluation, and at least one internal inconsistency in the reported results. The dataset may still be valuable as a resource, but the paper's validation section needs substantial work before the claims can be accepted.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section V-A, Table II] The evaluation reports MSE values of 0.10–0.18 for predicting normalized gas usage y, but it never compares against even the simplest baselines, such as predicting the historical mean or a one-step persistence forecast. Because gas usage is strongly autocorrelated and EIP-1559 actively regulates block sizes toward a target, a persistence model may achieve comparable or better MSE. Without such baselines, the numbers in Table II cannot be interpreted as evidence that the DNN, XGBoost, or LSTM learn anything beyond trivial autocorrelation, and the claim of 'reliable future gas demand predictions' in Section I-A is unsupported.
  2. [Section V-A, Section I-A] The experiments appear to evaluate models on a holdout drawn from the same period as the training data (e.g., the ARB airdrop period or the normal period), but the paper does not describe the train/test split, and no out-of-period evaluation is reported. Proactive fee adjustment must operate continuously across changing regimes—new airdrops, demand shocks, market cycles—so within-period held-out MSE is insufficient. The authors should either report a proper chronological split (e.g., train on Period 1, test on Period 2 and vice versa) or explicitly justify why within-period generalization supports the proactive mechanism claim.
  3. [Section V-A, Table II] No error bars, confidence intervals, or repeated-seed results are reported for any model. The claim that DNN is superior in 23 of 24 trials is not substantiated by any table, and the MSE differences in Table II are small (e.g., 0.10022 vs. 0.10201), which could easily arise from random variation. The authors should report means and standard deviations over multiple seeds and, ideally, a paired test or effect-size measure to support the superiority claim.
  4. [Section V-A vs. Table II] There is an internal inconsistency about the lookback window. Section V-A states that 'the highest accuracy was attained when using a 10-timestep lookback,' but Table II reports results only for 1, 2, and 3 timesteps. The 10-timestep result is never shown, and Section V-C says the authors 'restricted the k value to 1, 2, and 3' based on earlier empirical analyses that are not presented. The headline result is therefore unverifiable from the tables, and the manuscript should either include the 10-timestep numbers or remove the claim.
  5. [Section V-B] The monotonicity experiments lack quantitative evaluation. The text claims that with k=3 the monotonicity constraints are satisfied 'without adversely affecting the loss,' but no monotonicity-violation rate, no loss comparison with and without constraints, and no baseline model are reported. Figures 4–6 show training loss and example predictions but do not substantiate the transparency or accuracy claims. Since monotonicity is presented as part of the dataset's multi-task validation, this section needs concrete metrics (e.g., violation counts, MSE before/after constraint imposition, and comparison to an unconstrained NAM).
minor comments (6)
  1. [Throughout] The manuscript contains numerous typos and grammatical errors, including 'datatset', 'adavance', 'scablity', 'Comparitive', and 'can proposed'. A thorough language edit is needed.
  2. [Table II caption] The table caption does not identify which model family produced the reported MSE values. The text in Section V-C refers to the NAM model, but the table is titled 'MODEL PERFORMANCE OVER TWO PERIODS' and could be misread as reporting the general DNN/XGBoost/LSTM results. The caption should state the model and the experimental setting explicitly.
  3. [Section IV-B, Eq. (3)] The EMA formula is written as EMA = (C(P_c - P_p)) + P_c, which is not the standard exponential moving average and is not used later in the paper. This equation should be removed or replaced with a definition that matches the text.
  4. [Section IV-B, Eq. (6)] The weak monotonicity definition uses '∀c ∈ R' but the monotonicity constraint is meaningful for positive increments; if negative c is intended, the absolute-value formulation should be explained. Also, the variables xβ and xγ are confusingly named relative to the base fee feature β.
  5. [Section II-B] Reference [18] is described as implementing the DeepAR model to predict Ethereum gas price, but the cited paper title is 'Enhanced Bitcoin price direction forecasting with dqn.' The reference does not match the text and should be corrected or replaced.
  6. [Section I-B] The statement that 'Traditional comparisons with existing datasets are thus not applicable in this case' is asserted without evidence. Even if the framework is qualitatively different, some comparison with existing blockchain datasets (e.g., EX-Graph, Chartalist) would help position the contribution.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circularity in the core derivation; the target variable is temporally separated from the features, so the affine relation between y and α does not leak. Minor self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The central contribution is the data-fusion framework and dataset, not a fitted prediction. The normalized gas-used target y=(gas_used-gas_target)/gas_target and the feature α=gas_used/gas_limit are indeed affinely related (y=2α-1 when gas_target=gas_limit/2), but the forecasting task uses α and β from the previous k blocks to predict the next block's y, so the relationship is not self-definitional leakage (Section IV-A, Eqs. 1-2). Table II reports held-out MSE over two periods and several model/variable configurations, with no parameter fitted to the test target; the absence of naive baselines is an evaluation weakness, not a circularity. The monotonicity constraint is adapted from the authors' own ICML 2023 paper [40], but it is imposed as an interpretability constraint in an auxiliary experiment, and the formal definition is explicitly modified in Eq. 6, so no load-bearing result is imported by self-citation. Other self-citations ([6], [7]) provide background or motivation only. No uniqueness theorem, ansatz, or known result is renamed as a prediction. Therefore no circular step can be exhibited; the paper's claims are not forced by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The ledger shows that the paper relies on several domain choices (sentiment source, aggregation, lookback) that are not independently justified, but it does not introduce free-floating fitted constants or invented entities. The main missing piece is a comparison against a naive forecasting baseline.

free parameters (3)
  • lookback window k = 1, 2, 3 (and 10 timesteps mentioned once)
    The number of previous blocks used as features is chosen by hand; results vary with k, and no model selection criterion is given.
  • sentiment aggregation interval = hourly and daily averages
    Discord sentiment scores are averaged over one hour or one day to match with blocks; the interval is an arbitrary design choice.
  • monotonicity increment c = small value (unspecified)
    In the monotonicity loss (Eq. 6), the increment c is added to generate constraint pairs; its magnitude is not reported.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The base fee beta at block t is determined by a Markov process from the previous block's gas usage.
    Invoked in Section V-B to justify imposing monotonicity only on alpha; it is true under EIP-1559 but not proven in the paper.
  • domain assumption Discord text from Binance, Uniswap, and Ethereum Dev communities is representative of crypto market sentiment relevant to Ethereum gas usage.
    The choice of communities and the use of FinBERT sentiment scores assume a stable, predictive link between chat sentiment and on-chain demand.
  • domain assumption FinBERT, a pretrained model, provides accurate sentiment classification for this corpus.
    The paper relies on FinBERT's output without validating it on the specific Discord data.
  • ad hoc to paper A block-level autoregressive structure with k lags is sufficient to capture gas usage dynamics.
    The experiments only test k=1,2,3; no autocorrelation analysis or model selection is presented.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of FinML-Chain: A Blockchain-Integrated Dataset for Enhanced Financial Machine Learning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/A2XS4BID

@misc{pith2026241116277,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: FinML-Chain: A Blockchain-Integrated Dataset for Enhanced Financial Machine Learning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/A2XS4BID}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.16277}
}
read the original abstract

Machine learning is critical for innovation and efficiency in financial markets, offering predictive models and data-driven decision-making. However, challenges such as missing data, lack of transparency, untimely updates, insecurity, and incompatible data sources limit its effectiveness. Blockchain technology, with its transparency, immutability, and real-time updates, addresses these challenges. We present a framework for integrating high-frequency on-chain data with low-frequency off-chain data, providing a benchmark for addressing novel research questions in economic mechanism design. This framework generates modular, extensible datasets for analyzing economic mechanisms such as the Transaction Fee Mechanism, enabling multi-modal insights and fairness-driven evaluations. Using four machine learning techniques, including linear regression, deep neural networks, XGBoost, and LSTM models, we demonstrate the framework's ability to produce datasets that advance financial research and improve understanding of blockchain-driven systems. Our contributions include: (1) proposing a research scenario for the Transaction Fee Mechanism and demonstrating how the framework addresses previously unexplored questions in economic mechanism design; (2) providing a benchmark for financial machine learning by open-sourcing a sample dataset generated by the framework and the code for the pipeline, enabling continuous dataset expansion; and (3) promoting reproducibility, transparency, and collaboration by fully open-sourcing the framework and its outputs. This initiative supports researchers in extending our work and developing innovative financial machine-learning models, fostering advancements at the intersection of machine learning, blockchain, and economics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.16277 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Accuracy at token airdrop period edge computing, addressing trust issues inherent in edge computing environments [11]. Furthermore, the application of blockchain in the smart grid cyber layer enhances cyber￾security across various aspects, including measurement and control, data aggregation, data management, and system operation [12]. These examples collectively underscore the security, transparency, and reliability… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparison of methods at normal period facilitating the imposition of monotonicity constraints on specific features. The model is trained on data from two distinct periods, achieving weak pairwise monotonicity over the α feature. In the first step, standard training is conducted to enable the model to learn from the data. In the second step, we impose monotonic constraints. Specifically, discretizing the α feature i… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Prediction without monotonicity 0 20 40 60 80 100 0-100 datapoint 1.00 0.75 0.50 0.25 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 Gas used Prediction pred gas used true gas used [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparitive prediction results of model with and without sentiments [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Significance, relevance and explainability in the machine learning age: an econometrics and financial data science perspective,

    A. G. F. Hoepner, D. McMillan, A. Vivian, and C. Wese Simen, “Significance, relevance and explainability in the machine learning age: an econometrics and financial data science perspective,” The European Journal of Finance , vol. 27, no. 1–2, pp. 1–7, 2020

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    A survey on security threats and defensive techniques of machine learning: A data driven view,

    Q. Liu, P. Li, W. Zhao, W. Cai, S. Yu, and V . C. M. Leung, “A survey on security threats and defensive techniques of machine learning: A data driven view,” IEEE Access, vol. 6, pp. 12 103–12 117, 2018

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    Machine learning security: Threats, countermeasures, and evaluations,

    M. Xue, C. Yuan, H. Wu, Y . Zhang, and W. Liu, “Machine learning security: Threats, countermeasures, and evaluations,” IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 74 720–74 742, 2020

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Blockchain technology in the energy sector: A systematic review of challenges and opportunities,

    M. Andoni, V . Robu, D. Flynn, S. Abram, D. Geach, D. Jenkins, P. McCallum, and A. Peacock, “Blockchain technology in the energy sector: A systematic review of challenges and opportunities,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews , vol. 100, pp. 143–174, 2019. [Online]. Available: https: //www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032118307184

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    Blockchain technology as an approach for data marketplaces,

    S. Lawrenz, P. Sharma, and A. Rausch, “Blockchain technology as an approach for data marketplaces,” ser. ICBCT ’19. New York, NY , USA: Association for Computing Machinery, 2019, p. 55–59. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3320154.3320165

    work page arXiv 2019

  6. [6]

    Empirical analysis of eip-1559: Transaction fees, waiting times, and consensus security,

    Y . Liu, Y . Lu, K. Nayak, F. Zhang, L. Zhang, and Y . Zhao, “Empirical analysis of eip-1559: Transaction fees, waiting times, and consensus security,” in Proceedings of the 2022 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, ser. CCS ’22. New York, NY , USA: Association for Computing Machinery, 2022, p. 2099–2113. [Online]. Available: htt...

    arXiv 2022

  7. [7]

    Machine learning for blockchain: Literature review and open research questions,

    L. Zhang, “Machine learning for blockchain: Literature review and open research questions,” OSF Preprints, November 2023

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Blockchain distributed ledger technologies for biomedical and health care applications,

    T.-T. Kuo, H.-E. Kim, and L. Ohno-Machado, “Blockchain distributed ledger technologies for biomedical and health care applications,” Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, vol. 24, no. 6, pp. 1211–1220, 09 2017. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1093/jamia/ocx068

    work page doi:10.1093/jamia/ocx068 2017

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    Ethereum crypto-games: Mechanics, prevalence, and gambling similarities,

    O. J. Scholten, N. G. J. Hughes, S. Deterding, A. Drachen, J. A. Walker, and D. Zendle, “Ethereum crypto-games: Mechanics, prevalence, and gambling similarities,” in Proceedings of the Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play , ser. CHI PLAY ’19. New York, NY , U...

    2019

  2. [10]

    Blockchain-enabled decentralized trust management and secure usage control of iot big data,

    M. Zhaofeng, W. Lingyun, W. Xiaochang, W. Zhen, and Z. Weizhe, “Blockchain-enabled decentralized trust management and secure usage control of iot big data,” IEEE Internet of Things Journal , vol. 7, no. 5, pp. 4000–4015, 2020

    2020

  3. [11]

    Coopedge: A decentralized blockchain-based platform for cooperative edge computing,

    L. Yuan, Q. He, S. Tan, B. Li, J. Yu, F. Chen, H. Jin, and Y . Yang, “Coopedge: A decentralized blockchain-based platform for cooperative edge computing,” in Proceedings of the Web Conference 2021, ser. WWW ’21. New York, NY , USA: Association for Computing Machinery, 2021, p....

    2021

  4. [12]

    Blockchain for cybersecurity in smart grid: A comprehensive survey,

    P. Zhuang, T. Zamir, and H. Liang, “Blockchain for cybersecurity in smart grid: A comprehensive survey,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 3–19, 2021

    2021

  5. [13]

    A machine learning approach for gas price prediction in ethereum blockchain,

    R. Mars, A. Abid, S. Cheikhrouhou, and S. Kallel, “A machine learning approach for gas price prediction in ethereum blockchain,” in 2021 IEEE 45th Annual Computers, Software, and Applications Conference (COMPSAC), 2021, pp. 156–165

    2021

  6. [14]

    Blockchain transaction fee forecasting: A comparison of machine learning methods,

    C. Butler and M. Crane, “Blockchain transaction fee forecasting: A comparison of machine learning methods,” Mathematics, vol. 11, no. 9, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/ 11/9/2212

    2023

  7. [15]

    Chuang and T.-F

    C.-Y . Chuang and T.-F. Lee, Eds., The International Conference on Deep Learning, Big Data and Blockchain (Deep-BDB 2021) , vol. 309, 2022

    2021

  8. [16]

    Gas price prediction based on machine learning combined with ethereum mempool,

    D. Lan, H. Wang, C. Yin, L. Zhou, C. Ge, and X. Lu, “Gas price prediction based on machine learning combined with ethereum mempool,” in 2022 IEEE 19th International Conference on Mobile Ad Hoc and Smart Systems (MASS) , 2022, pp. 346–354

    2022

  9. [17]

    Effective gasprice prediction for carrying out economical ethereum transaction,

    F. Liu, X. Wang, Z. Li, J. Xu, and Y . Gao, “Effective gasprice prediction for carrying out economical ethereum transaction,” in 2019 6th International Conference on Dependable Systems and Their Applications (DSA) , 2020, pp. 329–334

    2019

  10. [18]

    Enhanced bitcoin price direction forecasting with dqn,

    A. Muminov, O. Sattarov, and D. Na, “Enhanced bitcoin price direction forecasting with dqn,” IEEE Access, vol. 12, pp. 29 093– 29 112, 2024

    2024

  11. [19]

    Solcmc: Solidity compiler’s model checker,

    L. Alt, M. Blicha, A. E. J. Hyvärinen, and N. Sharygina, “Solcmc: Solidity compiler’s model checker,” in Computer Aided Verification: 34th International Conference, CAV 2022, Haifa, Israel, August 7–10, 2022, Proceedings, Part I . Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag, 2022, p. ...

    2022 doi

  12. [20]

    A graph diffusion scheme for decentralized content search based on personalized pagerank,

    N. Giatsoglou, E. Krasanakis, S. Papadopoulos, and I. Kompatsiaris, “A graph diffusion scheme for decentralized content search based on personalized pagerank,” in 2022 IEEE 42nd International Con- ference on Distributed Computing Systems Workshops (ICDCSW) , 2022, pp. 53–59

    2022

  13. [21]

    Distributed runtime verification of metric temporal properties for cross-chain protocols,

    R. Ganguly, Y . Xue, A. Jonckheere, P. Ljung, B. Schornstein, B. Bonakdarpour, and M. Herlihy, “Distributed runtime verification of metric temporal properties for cross-chain protocols,” 2022. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2204.09796

    2022 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Monitoring data requests in decentralized data storage systems: A case study of ipfs,

    L. Balduf, S. Henningsen, M. Florian, S. Rust, and B. Scheuermann, “Monitoring data requests in decentralized data storage systems: A case study of ipfs,” 2022. [Online]. Available: https: //arxiv.org/abs/2104.09202

    2022 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Blockchain based non-repudiable iot data trading: Simpler, faster, and cheaper,

    F. Chen, J. Wang, C. Jiang, T. Xiang, and Y . Yang, “Blockchain based non-repudiable iot data trading: Simpler, faster, and cheaper,” in IEEE INFOCOM 2022 - IEEE Conference on Computer Communications, 2022, pp. 1958–1967

    2022

  16. [24]

    Brokerchain: A cross-shard blockchain protocol for account/balance- based state sharding,

    H. Huang, X. Peng, J. Zhan, S. Zhang, Y . Lin, Z. Zheng, and S. Guo, “Brokerchain: A cross-shard blockchain protocol for account/balance- based state sharding,” in IEEE INFOCOM 2022 - IEEE Conference on Computer Communications , 2022, pp. 1968–1977

    2022

  17. [25]

    Payment channel networks: Single- hop scheduling for throughput maximization,

    N. Papadis and L. Tassiulas, “Payment channel networks: Single- hop scheduling for throughput maximization,” in IEEE INFOCOM 2022 - IEEE Conference on Computer Communications , 2022, pp. 900–909

    2022

  18. [26]

    DispersedLedger: High-Throughput byzantine consensus on variable bandwidth networks,

    L. Yang, S. J. Park, M. Alizadeh, S. Kannan, and D. Tse, “DispersedLedger: High-Throughput byzantine consensus on variable bandwidth networks,” in 19th USENIX Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation (NSDI 22) . Renton, WA: USENIX Association, Apr. 2022, pp. 49...

    2022

  19. [27]

    Mixing transactions with arbitrary values on blockchains,

    W. Ni, P. Cheng, and L. Chen, “Mixing transactions with arbitrary values on blockchains,” in 2022 IEEE 38th International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE) , 2022, pp. 2602–2614

    2022

  20. [28]

    Blockope: Efficient order-preserving encryption for permissioned blockchain,

    Z. Chen, Q. Li, X. Qi, Z. Zhang, C. Jin, and A. Zhou, “Blockope: Efficient order-preserving encryption for permissioned blockchain,” in 2022 IEEE 38th International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE), 2022, pp. 1245–1258

    2022

  21. [29]

    vchain+: Optimizing verifiable blockchain boolean range queries,

    H. Wang, C. Xu, C. Zhang, J. Xu, Z. Peng, and J. Pei, “vchain+: Optimizing verifiable blockchain boolean range queries,” in 2022 IEEE 38th International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE) , 2022, pp. 1927–1940

    2022

  22. [30]

    EX-graph: A pioneering dataset bridging ethereum and x,

    Q. Wang, Z. Zhang, Z. Liu, S. Lu, B. Luo, and B. He, “EX-graph: A pioneering dataset bridging ethereum and x,” in The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations , 2024. [Online]. Available: https://openreview.net/forum?id=juE0rWGCJW

    2024

  23. [31]

    Char- talist: Labeled graph datasets for utxo and account-based blockchains,

    K. Shamsi, F. Victor, M. Kantarcioglu, and C. Akcora, “Char- talist: Labeled graph datasets for utxo and account-based blockchains,” OpenReview, 2024, retrieved September 16, 2024 from https://openreview.net/pdf?id=10iA3OowA V3

    2024

  24. [32]

    Spillover effects of airdrops: Evidence from tokenization platforms,

    D. Guo, L. Wang, and Y . Li, “Spillover effects of airdrops: Evidence from tokenization platforms,” in ICIS 2023 Proceedings , December 11 2023. [Online]. Available: https://aisel.aisnet.org/ icis2023/user_behav/user_behav/7/

    2023

  25. [33]

    The predictive power of public twitter sentiment for forecasting cryptocurrency prices,

    O. Kraaijeveld and J. De Smedt, “The predictive power of public twitter sentiment for forecasting cryptocurrency prices,” Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money , vol. 65, p. 101188, 2020

    2020

  26. [34]

    Kryptooracle: a real-time cryptocurrency price prediction platform using twitter sentiments,

    S. Mohapatra, N. Ahmed, and P. Alencar, “Kryptooracle: a real-time cryptocurrency price prediction platform using twitter sentiments,” in 2019 IEEE international conference on big data (Big Data) . IEEE, 2019, pp. 5544–5551

    2019

  27. [35]

    Business intelligence aspect for emotions and sentiments analysis,

    S. Khan, “Business intelligence aspect for emotions and sentiments analysis,” in 2022 First International Conference on Electrical, Elec- tronics, Information and Communication Technologies (ICEEICT) . IEEE, 2022, pp. 1–5

    2022

  28. [36]

    Neural additive models: Interpretable machine learning with neural nets,

    R. Agarwal, L. Melnick, N. Frosst, X. Zhang, B. Lengerich, R. Caruana, and G. E. Hinton, “Neural additive models: Interpretable machine learning with neural nets,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 34, 2021

    2021

  29. [37]

    Moving averages for financial data smoothing,

    A. Raudys, V . Lenˇciauskas, and E. Mal ˇcius, “Moving averages for financial data smoothing,” in Information and Software Technologies, T. Skersys, R. Butleris, and R. Butkiene, Eds. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2013, pp. 34–45

    2013

  30. [38]

    Exponential moving average versus moving exponential average,

    F. Klinker, “Exponential moving average versus moving exponential average,” Mathematische Semesterberichte , vol. 58, pp. 97–107, 2011

    2011

  31. [39]

    Exponential moving average (ema)

    “Exponential moving average (ema).” [Online]. Avail- able: https://www.fidelity.com/learning-center/trading-investing/ technical-analysis/technical-indicator-guide/ema

  32. [40]

    How to address monotonicity for model risk management?

    D. Chen and W. Ye, “How to address monotonicity for model risk management?” in Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Machine Learning , ser. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, vol. 202. PMLR, 23–29 Jul 2023, pp. 5282–5295

    2023

  33. [41]

    Certified monotonic neural networks,

    X. Liu, X. Han, N. Zhang, and Q. Liu, “Certified monotonic neural networks,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , vol. 33, pp. 15 427–15 438, 2020

    2020

  34. [42]

    Fast and flexible monotonic functions with ensembles of lattices,

    M. Milani Fard, K. Canini, A. Cotter, J. Pfeifer, and M. Gupta, “Fast and flexible monotonic functions with ensembles of lattices,” Advances in neural information processing systems , vol. 29, 2016

    2016

  35. [43]

    Finbert: Financial sentiment analysis with pre-trained language models,

    D. Araci, “Finbert: Financial sentiment analysis with pre-trained language models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.10063 , 2019

    1908 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.