XSema: A Novel Framework for Semantic Extraction of Cross-chain Transactions

Dan Lin; Jiajing Wu; Na Ruan; Quanzhong Li; Ziye Zheng

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 28 references

XSema: A Novel Framework for Semantic Extraction of Cross-chain Transactions

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read XSema distinguishes cross-chain deposits, withdrawals, and ordinary transactions by combining asset-transfer graph motifs with event-log text, reaching 99.72% accuracy on known bridges and 94.81% on unseen bridges.

desk verdict A plausible framework and useful new dataset for cross-chain transaction semantics, but the headline accuracy numbers rest on unverifiable explorer-derived labels and a sloppy metric table; fix those before trusting any number. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.18129 v1 pith:4MOHWZKJ submitted 2024-12-24 cs.DC

Ziye Zheng , Jiajing Wu , Dan Lin , Quanzhong Li , Na Ruan This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.DC

keywords cross-chaintransactionssemanticextractionassettransfergraphnetworkmotifsmessage-passingeventlogspre-trainedcodemodelstransactionclassificationblockchainbridges

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

The paper argues that cross-chain transactions leave two detectable traces: the shape of the asset-transfer graph on the source and destination chains, and the text of the event logs emitted during execution. XSema encodes both traces—16 directed network motifs for the graph, and code-pretrained embeddings of concatenated event names for the text—and feeds the concatenated vector to a standard classifier. On a new dataset of 11,879 cross-chain transaction pairs from ten bridges plus 10,183 ordinary Ethereum transactions, the framework classifies deposits, withdrawals, and non-cross-chain transactions with up to 99.72% accuracy when tested on the same bridges and 94.81% accuracy when tested on six bridges excluded from training. The authors' point is that transaction semantics for cross-chain regulation can be extracted without hand-crafting rules per bridge, because the underlying asset-transfer and message-passing patterns generalize.

What carries the argument

The central objects are (1) the asset transfer graph, a directed graph whose edges are external, internal, ERC-20, and ERC-721 transfers involving the transaction, summarized as a 16-dimensional vector of directed motif frequencies (M1–M16); and (2) the message-passing text, a sequence of concatenated event-log names from the transaction, encoded by a code pre-trained model and an MLP into another 16-dimensional vector. The two vectors are concatenated into the transaction's semantic representation, which a standard classifier maps to deposit, withdrawal, or non-cross-chain. The motif statistics capture the structural signature of asset flow, while the event-log encoding captures bridge-specific but transferable message-passing vocabulary.

What would settle it

Take a random sample of transactions labeled as deposits and withdrawals, and independently verify each one by matching the source-chain deposit event's transfer ID (or equivalent identifier) to the corresponding destination-chain withdrawal event in the bridge's contracts; if a nontrivial fraction of labels fail to match, recompute XSema's accuracy on the corrected labels and compare it with the reported 99.72% and 94.81% figures.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

XSema treats cross-chain semantic extraction as a three-way classification problem—deposit transaction on the source chain, withdrawal transaction on the destination chain, and non-cross-chain transaction—and claims that a representation combining asset-transfer structure with message-passing text is sufficient to separate these classes. The framework analyzes the transaction's asset transfer graph using 16 directed network motifs, constructs a text sequence from the event log names, encodes that text with a code pre-trained model (CodeBERT, GraphCodeBERT, or UniXcoder) followed by an MLP, and concatenates both 16-dimensional representations before classification. The reported results show XSema beating the prior generalized transaction-semantic method by over 9% in accuracy on the same set of bridges and by over 10% on bridges not seen in training, with the best configurations reaching 99.72% and 94.81% accuracy respectively.

Load-bearing premise

The training and test labels come from searching each bridge's own transaction browser and scraping the results, so the entire evaluation assumes those search tools identify every cross-chain deposit and withdrawal correctly and completely.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Cross-chain transactions on known bridges can be separated from ordinary transactions at better than 99% accuracy using only transaction metadata available through standard RPC APIs.
Training on four high-volume bridges transfers to six unseen bridges with over 94% accuracy, indicating that bridge-specific event names and contract layouts are not needed for classification.
The method needs no per-bridge hand-crafted rules: the same motif statistics and event-log encoding work across ten different bridge implementations.
The concentration of cross-chain transactions on a few high-order motifs (motifs 10, 11, and 13 for deposits; motif 11 for withdrawals) suggests a compact structural signature usable for monitoring.

Reading between the lines

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

If the label-scraping assumption holds, the same two-view representation could be applied to other cross-chain mechanisms (e.g., layer-2 message passing or atomic swaps) by redefining the asset-transfer edges and event text appropriately, though the 16-motif vocabulary may need extension for larger graphs.
The sharp drop from 99.72% on seen bridges to 94.81% on unseen bridges hints that a share of the signal is bridge-specific vocabulary in event names; a domain-adaptation step on event text might close that gap.
Because the framework returns interpretable motif and event-word statistics, regulators could use the same features to triage large transaction volumes for manual review rather than relying on black-box scores.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: XSema is a sensible, clearly written empirical paper that builds a new cross-chain transaction dataset across 10 bridges and combines MoTS-style motif features with pre-trained code-model embeddings of event logs to classify deposits, withdrawals, and normal transactions. The held-out-bridge generalization experiment is the right design, and the semantic analysis (motif heatmap, term clouds) gives some real texture. If the accuracy numbers hold after independent reproduction, this is a useful tool for regulators and analytics teams.

The soft spots are mostly about verification. The labels come from scraping bridge browsers' search results (Sec. IV-A). No error rate, no manual check, no release of code or data. If an explorer misses a cross-chain tx, that tx lands in the negative class; if it misindexes, you get a false label. And because the model's features are exactly the event names and transfer graphs the explorers use to categorize, label noise is correlated with the input signal. That can inflate accuracy precisely at the saturating 99% level they report. This is a load-bearing concern, not a nit.

There is also a reporting red flag: precision, recall, and accuracy are identical in every row of Tables IV and V. That is not what the macro metrics defined in Sec. IV-B should produce on these class distributions. Likely they printed overall accuracy in all three columns. That needs fixing before anyone trusts the numbers.

On credit where due: the framework is straightforwardly specified, the held-out split is a fair test of C2, and the paper doesn't overclaim—it says 'effectively distinguishes' and then reports numbers. The reliance on MoTS's motif extractor is fine; the held-out test provides external grounding. The citation pattern to the group's own prior work is appropriate, not self-promotional.

Bottom line: the central design likely survives, but the evidence is currently not independently auditable. This paper deserves a serious referee, but the referee should insist on code/data release, error bars, and a corrected metric table. I would not cite the accuracy figures until I can reproduce them. For a reading group, it's worth a maybe: the label-construction risk is a good discussion topic.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes XSema, a supervised framework for cross-chain transaction semantic extraction. Given a transaction's metadata, XSema builds an asset-transfer graph and a message-passing text sequence from event logs, then combines a 16-dimensional motif feature vector with a pre-trained-code-model embedding and an MLP, and feeds the concatenation into a downstream classifier. The task is three-way classification of source-chain deposit, destination-chain withdrawal, and non-cross-chain transactions. The authors construct a dataset of 11,879 cross-chain transaction pairs and 10,183 non-cross-chain transactions across 10 bridges and three chains, and report generality experiments (random 80:20 split over all bridges) reaching 99.72% accuracy with DT+UniXcoder, and generalizability experiments (train on four bridges, test on six unseen bridges) reaching 94.81% accuracy with SVM+GraphCodeBERT. They also analyze motif distributions and event-log word clouds for semantic differences between transaction types.

Significance. If the empirical claims held up, the paper would provide a useful new dataset and a practical baseline for cross-chain transaction classification, a topic of growing importance for blockchain security and regulation. The strongest design element is the held-out-bridge generalization experiment (Section IV-E), which directly targets the challenge of unseen bridge mechanisms and goes beyond a purely random-split evaluation. The framework is clearly specified, and the use of a public motif-based feature extractor plus pre-trained code models is reproducible in principle. However, the current evidence is not yet sufficient: the ground-truth labels rest on unverified bridge-browser scraping, the reported metrics are internally inconsistent, no code or data are released, and the near-saturated accuracy numbers leave essentially no room for label noise or implementation error. The semantic analysis in Section IV-F is suggestive but informal.

major comments (4)

[IV-A (Dataset)] The load-bearing assumption of the entire evaluation is that the bridge-browser search results used to label transactions are accurate and complete. Section IV-A states that the authors 'accessed the cross-chain bridge browsers and utilized their search functions to filter potential cross-chain transactions, subsequently scraping the search results to construct accurate labels.' If an explorer misses, delays, or misindexes a deposit or withdrawal, that transaction is mislabeled as non-cross-chain (or given the wrong class), and every accuracy number in Tables IV and V is measured against corrupted labels. The paper provides no error-rate estimate, no manual verification protocol, and no code or data release that would allow the 33,941 labels to be audited. Because the model's features (event names and transfer graphs) are exactly the signals explorers use to categorize transactions, label errors are plausibly correlated with the input features and can inflate apparent accuracy. The authors should report an independent verification study (e.g., manual review of a stratified sample, or cross-checking against a second explorer or against the bridge contracts' emitted events), quantify label noise, and make the data and labeling scripts available.
[IV-B and Tables IV-V] The metric reporting is internally inconsistent: in every row of Tables IV and V, precision, recall, and accuracy are identical to three decimal places, and the F1-macro differs from them. For a three-class problem with unequal class sizes (10,183 non-cross-chain vs. 11,879 deposits vs. 11,879 withdrawals), identical macro-averaged precision and recall are essentially impossible to obtain by chance in all 24 rows, and identical precision and accuracy are also not expected. This pattern suggests that the reported precision and recall are not computed as defined in Eqs. (3)-(5), or that the metrics are micro-averages over a single collapsed binary problem, or that only the accuracy is actually computed and then copied. The authors must provide per-class precision, recall, and F1 for each setting, clarify the averaging scheme, and correct the tables. This issue does not by itself refute the central claim, but it undermines the trustworthiness of the reported margins over MoTS.
[IV-D and IV-E] The performance comparisons lack any measure of uncertainty. The central claims are margins of 'over 9%' and 'over 10%' over MoTS, but no confidence intervals, standard deviations across repeated runs, or significance tests are reported. Given that the test sets are of moderate size (the generalizability experiment tests on six bridges with on the order of 1,000 to 2,000 samples in some classes, e.g., Connext with 90 pairs and Wormhole with 53 pairs), a margin of a few percentage points could be within noise. The authors should report confidence intervals or repeated-trial statistics, and ideally per-bridge breakdowns for the held-out bridges, which would also reveal which bridge types drive the reported gains.
[IV-D (Generality experiment)] The generality experiment uses an 80:20 random split over all bridges, which is appropriate for measuring in-distribution performance but not for the claim of 'generality' across bridges, since the same bridges appear in training and test. The paper should clarify whether the split is at the transaction level or at the bridge level, and should report the class distribution and per-bridge accuracy in the test set. The near-saturated top result of 99.72% accuracy also warrants scrutiny: with such a high accuracy, the reported 9-10% improvements over MoTS could be dominated by a small number of misclassified samples, so the robustness of the margins should be examined, for example by ablating each feature module and by perturbing the label set.

minor comments (6)

[Abstract and Introduction] The abstract and introduction claim 'surpassing existing methods by over 9% for the generality metric and over 10% for the generalization metric,' but the exact comparison setting (which classifier and which pre-trained model) is not stated until later; please specify the baseline configuration in the abstract or at the first mention of the margin.
[III-D] The choice of max length = 256 for the event-log text sequence is stated without justification or sensitivity analysis; please report how performance varies with this hyperparameter.
[III-E and Fig. 1] Equation (2) shows concatenation of the 16-dimensional motif vector and the 16-dimensional text representation, but the text representation dimension is not derived explicitly from the pre-trained model and MLP; please clarify the output dimension of the MLP and how it is set to 16.
[IV-A] The dataset description does not explain how the 'non-cross-chain transactions' were sampled to avoid overlap with the source-chain deposit transactions of the labeled cross-chain pairs; please clarify the exclusion criteria.
[IV-F] The word-cloud and heatmap analyses are informal; please provide quantitative statistics (e.g., effect sizes or statistical tests) to support the claims that motif distributions are 'more concentrated' and that terms like 'toChainId' are 'particularly prevalent.'
[References] The paper cites the Chainspot platform but does not provide a reference or URL; please add a citation for the platform and for the bridge explorer tools used in data labeling.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: XSema's held-out-bridge evaluation provides external grounding; the MoTS self-citation is not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper makes no formal claim that reduces to its own inputs by construction. XSema is an empirical supervised-learning framework: asset-transfer motif statistics (Section III-C) and message-passing text embeddings (Section III-D) are concatenated in Eq. (2) and fed to standard classifiers, with labels coming from bridge-browser search results described in Section IV-A. That label source is an external oracle, not a fitted parameter or an output of the model. The central claim of generalization is tested in Section IV-E by training on four bridges and evaluating on six unseen bridges, which is exactly the non-circular, held-out evidence needed to support the headline numbers. The only self-citation is the use of MoTS [21] for subgraph matrix calculations and as a baseline; although it shares authors, it is used as a feature-engineering component and a fair comparison baseline, not as an imported theorem or as justification of the target result. The motif features are a proper subset of XSema's input, and the message-passing component is independently responsible for the reported margin over MoTS. Possible concerns about label completeness or the suspiciously identical precision/recall/accuracy entries in Tables IV and V are correctness or reproducibility risks, not circularity: none of the reported numbers is equal to a fitted parameter or to the label-generating rule by construction. Therefore no step in the derivation chain is circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim is empirical and rests on supervised classification rather than a derivation, so there are no physical free parameters. Several modeling choices are hand-set, such as text truncation length, split ratio, and architecture variants, while internal classifier weights are fitted to collected labels. The main domain axioms are label reliability, transferability of pre-trained embeddings, comparability of differently timed transaction samples, and preservation of cross-chain pair identity during splitting. The paper introduces no new physical or conceptual entities.

free parameters (4)

max event log text length = 256
Event log text is truncated to 256 tokens in Section III-D; chosen by hand, with no sensitivity analysis reported.
MLP and classifier hyperparameters = Not reported
The MLP layers, activation choices, learning rates, and scikit-learn classifier settings are not specified; they affect all reported accuracy values.
Pre-trained model choice = CodeBERT, GraphCodeBERT, UniXcoder
Architectural variant selection, not a data-fitted number, but central to the event encoding; reported results vary by up to 5% across choices.
Train/test split ratio = 80:20
Chosen by hand for the generality and generalizability experiments in Sections IV-D and IV-E; no repeated splits or cross-validation are reported.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Cross-chain bridge explorer search results provide accurate ground-truth labels for deposit and withdrawal transactions.
Used in dataset labeling in Section IV-A; no manual verification, inter-annotator agreement, or error analysis is reported.
domain assumption The 16 directed motifs from MoTS capture asset-transfer structure that is discriminative for cross-chain versus non-cross-chain behavior.
Motif computation is cited to reference [21], and no independent justification is given for why these small subgraphs are the right language for cross-chain semantics in Section III-C.
domain assumption Pre-trained code models produce event-log text embeddings that retain semantic signal after truncation to 256 tokens.
Assumed in Section III-D; truncation may cut long event sequences, and no sensitivity analysis is provided.
domain assumption The separately sampled cross-chain (April 2021 to March 2024) and non-cross-chain (March 2018 to June 2023) transaction periods are comparable, so temporal distribution shift does not drive classification.
Section IV-A samples non-cross-chain transactions from a much earlier start date; protocol-level changes over time could act as a confounding signal.
domain assumption In the 80:20 generality split, a deposit transaction on the source chain and its paired withdrawal on the destination chain are not split across train and test in a way that leaks the transfer identity.
Section IV-D splits each class independently, but the paper does not state whether pairing is preserved; this assumption is necessary for unbiased accuracy.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of XSema: A Novel Framework for Semantic Extraction of Cross-chain Transactions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4MOHWZKJ

@misc{pith2026241218129,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: XSema: A Novel Framework for Semantic Extraction of Cross-chain Transactions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4MOHWZKJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.18129}
}

read the original abstract

As the number of blockchain platforms continues to grow, the independence of these networks poses challenges for transferring assets and information across chains. Cross-chain bridge technology has emerged to address this issue, establishing communication protocols to facilitate cross-chain interaction of assets and information, thereby enhancing user experience. However, the complexity of cross-chain transactions increases the difficulty of security regulation, rendering traditional single-chain detection methods inadequate for cross-chain scenarios. Therefore, understanding cross-chain transaction semantics is crucial, as it forms the foundation for cross-chain security detection tasks. Although there are existing methods for extracting transaction semantics specifically for single chains, these approaches often overlook the unique characteristics of cross-chain scenarios, limiting their applicability. This paper introduces XSema, a novel cross-chain semantic extraction framework grounded in asset transfer and message-passing, designed specifically for cross-chain contexts. Experimental results demonstrate that XSema effectively distinguishes between cross-chain and non-cross-chain transactions, surpassing existing methods by over 9% for the generality metric and over 10% for the generalization metric. Furthermore, we analyze the underlying asset transfer patterns and message-passing event logs associated with cross-chain transactions. We offer new insights into the coexistence of multiple blockchains and the cross-chain ecosystem.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.18129 by the authors.

**Figure 3.** Asset Transfer Graph Modeling. Asset Transfer Motif Statistics: Using the constructed asset transfer graph, we extract structural features to characterize the asset transfer patterns of each transaction. Network motifs, as higher-order network organizations, serve as effective tools for reflecting and extracting hidden information about network structures [24] [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Directed network motifs. outcomes involved. We utilize the event log sequence associated with txh to construct a corresponding message-passing text sequence for each transaction. Specifically, we crawl all event log data related to the transaction through the RPC APIs provided by full blockchain nodes. We extract event names containing semantic information from each log and concatenate these names, punctuated appro… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (3 more)

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: This transaction includes two event logs, with event [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Heatmap of Motif Statistics. compared to non-cross-chain transactions. We extract event names and their corresponding parameter names for both types of transactions, calculating the frequency of each term, as depicted in the event cloud diagram in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:fig…

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Word clouds of different types of transactions. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

[1]

An overview of blockchain technology: Architecture, consensus, and future trends,

Z. Zheng, S. Xie, H. Dai, X. Chen, and H. Wang, “An overview of blockchain technology: Architecture, consensus, and future trends,” in IEEE International Congress on Big Data , 2017, pp. 557–564

work page 2017
[2]

An overview on cross-chain: Mechanism, platforms, challenges and advances,

W. Ou, S. Huang, J. Zheng, Q. Zhang, G. Zeng, and W. Han, “An overview on cross-chain: Mechanism, platforms, challenges and advances,” Computer Networks, vol. 218, p. 109378, 2022

work page 2022
[3]

O’Reilly Media, Inc

M. Swan, Blockchain: Blueprint for a new economy. “ O’Reilly Media, Inc.”, 2015

work page 2015
[4]

A survey on blockchain interoperability: Past, present, and future trends,

R. Belchior, A. Vasconcelos, S. Guerreiro, and M. Correia, “A survey on blockchain interoperability: Past, present, and future trends,” ACM Computing Surveys, vol. 54, no. 8, pp. 1–41, 2021

work page 2021
[5]

(2022, Jul.) With bridges, trust is a spectrum

LI.FI. (2022, Jul.) With bridges, trust is a spectrum

work page 2022
[6]

Sok: Not quite water under the bridge: Review of cross-chain bridge hacks,

S.-S. Lee, A. Murashkin, M. Derka, and J. Gorzny, “Sok: Not quite water under the bridge: Review of cross-chain bridge hacks,” in IEEE International Conference on Blockchain and Cryptocurrency, 2023, pp. 1–14

work page 2023
[7]

(2022) The state of cross-chain crime report

Elliptic Team. (2022) The state of cross-chain crime report

work page 2022
[8]

(2023) The state of cross-chain crime report

——. (2023) The state of cross-chain crime report

work page 2023

Show all 28 references

[9]

Riskprop: Account risk rating on ethereum via de-anonymous score and network propagation,

D. Lin, J. Wu, Q. Fu, Z. Zheng, and T. Chen, “Riskprop: Account risk rating on ethereum via de-anonymous score and network propagation,” IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing , 2024, to be published, doi: 10.1109/TDSC.2024.3475825

2024
[10]

Dappfl: Just-in-time fault localization for decentralized applications in web3,

Z. Wu, J. Wu, H. Zhang, Z. Li, J. Chen, Z. Zheng, Q. Xia, G. Fan, and Y . Zhen, “Dappfl: Just-in-time fault localization for decentralized applications in web3,” in Proceedings of the 33rd ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis , 2024, pp. 137–148

2024
[11]

De- tecting mixing services via mining bitcoin transaction network with hybrid motifs,

J. Wu, J. Liu, W. Chen, H. Huang, Z. Zheng, and Y . Zhang, “De- tecting mixing services via mining bitcoin transaction network with hybrid motifs,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems, vol. 52, no. 4, pp. 2237–2249, 2021

2021
[12]

Denseflow: Spotting cryptocurrency money laundering in ethereum transaction graphs,

D. Lin, J. Wu, Y . Yu, Q. Fu, Z. Zheng, and C. Yang, “Denseflow: Spotting cryptocurrency money laundering in ethereum transaction graphs,” in Proceedings of the ACM on Web Conference , 2024, pp. 4429–4438

2024
[13]

To- wards understanding asset flows in crypto money laundering through the lenses of ethereum heists,

J. Wu, D. Lin, Q. Fu, S. Yang, T. Chen, Z. Zheng, and B. Song, “To- wards understanding asset flows in crypto money laundering through the lenses of ethereum heists,” IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security, vol. 19, pp. 1994–2009, 2023

1994
[14]

Financial crimes in web3-empowered metaverse: Taxonomy, countermeasures, and opportunities,

J. Wu, K. Lin, D. Lin, Z. Zheng, H. Huang, and Z. Zheng, “Financial crimes in web3-empowered metaverse: Taxonomy, countermeasures, and opportunities,” IEEE Open Journal of the Computer Society, vol. 4, pp. 37–49, 2023

2023
[15]

Trustgo: Trust mining and multi-semantic regularization in social recommendation,

S. Liu, Y . Lan, X. Deng, L. Yi, C. Zhu, L. Yang, and J. H. Park, “Trustgo: Trust mining and multi-semantic regularization in social recommendation,” in Proceedings of the 2024 International Conference on Multimedia Retrieval , 2024, pp. 888–896

2024
[16]

Towards a first step to understand flash loan and its appli- cations in defi ecosystem,

D. Wang, S. Wu, Z. Lin, L. Wu, X. Yuan, Y . Zhou, H. Wang, and K. Ren, “Towards a first step to understand flash loan and its appli- cations in defi ecosystem,” in Proceedings of the Ninth International Workshop on Security in Blockchain and Cloud Computing , 2021, pp. 23–28

2021
[17]

An ever-evolving game: Evaluation of real-world attacks and defenses in ethereum ecosystem,

S. Zhou, M. M ¨oser, Z. Yang, B. Adida, T. Holz, J. Xiang, S. Goldfeder, Y . Cao, M. Plattner, X. Qinet al., “An ever-evolving game: Evaluation of real-world attacks and defenses in ethereum ecosystem,” in 29th USENIX Security Symposium , 2020, pp. 2793–2810

2020
[18]

Ponzi scheme detection in smart contract via transaction semantic representation learning,

J. Cai, B. Li, J. Zhang, and X. Sun, “Ponzi scheme detection in smart contract via transaction semantic representation learning,” IEEE Transactions on Reliability , vol. 73, no. 2, pp. 1117–1131, 2023

2023
[19]

Defiranger: Detecting price manipulation attacks on defi applications,

S. Wu, D. Wang, J. He, Y . Zhou, L. Wu, X. Yuan, Q. He, and K. Ren, “Defiranger: Detecting price manipulation attacks on defi applications,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.15068 , 2021

2021 arXiv
[20]

Trade or trick? detecting and characterizing scam tokens on uniswap decentralized exchange,

P. Xia, H. Wang, B. Gao, W. Su, Z. Yu, X. Luo, C. Zhang, X. Xiao, and G. Xu, “Trade or trick? detecting and characterizing scam tokens on uniswap decentralized exchange,” Proceedings of the ACM on Measurement and Analysis of Computing Systems , vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 1–26, 2021

2021
[21]

Know your transactions: Real-time and generic transaction semantic representation on blockchain & web3 ecosystem,

Z. Wu, J. Liu, J. Wu, Z. Zheng, X. Luo, and T. Chen, “Know your transactions: Real-time and generic transaction semantic representation on blockchain & web3 ecosystem,” in Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference, 2023, pp. 1918–1927

2023
[22]

(2022, Jul.) Apis for a vibrant decentralized future

The Graph Team. (2022, Jul.) Apis for a vibrant decentralized future

2022
[23]

Smartaxe: Detecting cross-chain vulnerabilities in bridge smart con- tracts via fine-grained static analysis,

Z. Liao, Y . Nan, H. Liang, S. Hao, J. Zhai, J. Wu, and Z. Zheng, “Smartaxe: Detecting cross-chain vulnerabilities in bridge smart con- tracts via fine-grained static analysis,” Proceedings of the ACM on Software Engineering, vol. 1, no. 12, pp. 249–270, 2024

2024
[24]

Higher-order organiza- tion of complex networks,

A. R. Benson, D. F. Gleich, and J. Leskovec, “Higher-order organiza- tion of complex networks,” Science, vol. 353, no. 6295, pp. 163–166, 2016

2016
[25]

Codebert: A pre-trained model for programming and natural languages,

Z. Feng, D. Guo, D. Tang, N. Duan, X. Feng, M. Gong, L. Shou, B. Qin, T. Liu, D. Jiang et al. , “Codebert: A pre-trained model for programming and natural languages,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.08155, 2020

2002 arXiv
[26]

Graphcodebert: Pre-training code representations with data flow,

D. Guo, S. Ren, S. Lu, Z. Feng, D. Tang, S. Liu, L. Zhou, N. Duan, A. Svyatkovskiy, S. Fu et al. , “Graphcodebert: Pre-training code representations with data flow,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.08366, 2020

2009 arXiv
[27]

Unix- coder: Unified cross-modal pre-training for code representation,

D. Guo, S. Lu, N. Duan, Y . Wang, M. Zhou, and J. Yin, “Unix- coder: Unified cross-modal pre-training for code representation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.03850, 2022

2022 arXiv
[28]

Scikit-learn: Machine learning in python,

F. Pedregosa, G. Varoquaux, A. Gramfort, V . Michel, B. Thirion, O. Grisel, M. Blondel, P. Prettenhofer, R. Weiss, V . Dubourg et al. , “Scikit-learn: Machine learning in python,” Journal of Machine Learn- ing Research, vol. 12, pp. 2825–2830, 2011

2011

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

An overview of blockchain technology: Architecture, consensus, and future trends,

Z. Zheng, S. Xie, H. Dai, X. Chen, and H. Wang, “An overview of blockchain technology: Architecture, consensus, and future trends,” in IEEE International Congress on Big Data , 2017, pp. 557–564

work page 2017

[2] [2]

An overview on cross-chain: Mechanism, platforms, challenges and advances,

W. Ou, S. Huang, J. Zheng, Q. Zhang, G. Zeng, and W. Han, “An overview on cross-chain: Mechanism, platforms, challenges and advances,” Computer Networks, vol. 218, p. 109378, 2022

work page 2022

[3] [3]

O’Reilly Media, Inc

M. Swan, Blockchain: Blueprint for a new economy. “ O’Reilly Media, Inc.”, 2015

work page 2015

[4] [4]

A survey on blockchain interoperability: Past, present, and future trends,

R. Belchior, A. Vasconcelos, S. Guerreiro, and M. Correia, “A survey on blockchain interoperability: Past, present, and future trends,” ACM Computing Surveys, vol. 54, no. 8, pp. 1–41, 2021

work page 2021

[5] [5]

(2022, Jul.) With bridges, trust is a spectrum

LI.FI. (2022, Jul.) With bridges, trust is a spectrum

work page 2022

[6] [6]

Sok: Not quite water under the bridge: Review of cross-chain bridge hacks,

S.-S. Lee, A. Murashkin, M. Derka, and J. Gorzny, “Sok: Not quite water under the bridge: Review of cross-chain bridge hacks,” in IEEE International Conference on Blockchain and Cryptocurrency, 2023, pp. 1–14

work page 2023

[7] [7]

(2022) The state of cross-chain crime report

Elliptic Team. (2022) The state of cross-chain crime report

work page 2022

[8] [8]

(2023) The state of cross-chain crime report

——. (2023) The state of cross-chain crime report

work page 2023