Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 38 references

Leveraging Large Language Models and Machine Learning for Smart Contract Vulnerability Detection

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that fine-tuning a large language model on annotated smart contract source code yields over 90% accuracy in detecting vulnerabilities, surpassing a classical LSTM baseline.

desk verdict Routine benchmark comparison undermined by internal numerical contradictions and a leakage-prone iterative testing procedure; the >90% claim is unsupported. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.02229 v1 pith:IL7NCEDI submitted 2025-01-04 cs.CR

S M Mostaq Hossain , Amani Altarawneh , Jesse Roberts This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CR
keywords smartcontractlargelanguagemodelmachinelearningvulnerabilitydetectionfine-tuningEthereumDistilBERTLSTM
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 sets out to show that fine-tuned large language models can classify smart contract vulnerabilities more accurately than classical machine learning. It trains an LSTM, a DistilBERT model, and a BERT model on an annotated dataset of 2,217 Solidity contracts covering Reentrancy, Integer Overflow, Timestamp Dependency, and Dangerous Delegatecall. The authors report that the fine-tuned LLM exceeds 90% accuracy and beats the other models, arguing that the transformer's bidirectional attention captures subtle, context-dependent code patterns that the LSTM misses. If correct, this would give blockchain security teams a practical, automated screening tool for known vulnerability types, complementing static analysis.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is fine-tuning of encoder-only transformer language models—BERT and its distilled variant DistilBERT—on tokenized Solidity source snippets, so that the model learns to map each snippet to one of four vulnerability labels. The paper argues that the bidirectional self-attention over the entire token sequence is what lets these models capture long-range, context-dependent patterns such as the call-and-state-update ordering behind Reentrancy, whereas the LSTM baseline (a bidirectional LSTM with attention and convolution layers) builds a sequential latent representation that is more limited in this respect. The dataset of 2,217 annotated contracts supplies the supervised signal for the fine-tuning.

What would settle it

Run LSTM, DistilBERT, and BERT on the same dataset with a fixed 80/10/10 split, a validation set for early stopping, and a test set touched exactly once, then compare accuracies; if the fine-tuned LLM does not exceed the LSTM's accuracy, or if no model reaches over 90%, the central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that fine-tuning a pre-trained encoder-only transformer on a labeled smart contract dataset produces a vulnerability classifier superior to a classical recurrent baseline. Concretely, the authors assert that their fine-tuned DistilBERT model outperforms both BERT and a bidirectional LSTM with attention, achieving an accuracy above 90% and stronger precision-recall balance on the majority of the four vulnerability classes. The paper attributes this advantage to the LLM's ability to attend to the full code context and recognize dependencies, such as the ordering of calls and state updates that define Reentrancy, which sequential models tend to miss. The authors present this as evidence that LLMs can advance existing vulnerability detection benchmarks rather than merely match them.

Load-bearing premise

The central claim stands only if the reported accuracies were measured on a test set that never influenced the model or dataset adjustments during the iterative testing described in Section IV-C.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the reported accuracy holds, fine-tuned LLMs can serve as automated first-pass auditors that flag Reentrancy, Integer Overflow, Timestamp Dependency, and Dangerous Delegatecall in Solidity code.
  • The comparison establishes a benchmark on this annotated dataset that future LLM-based detectors can measure against.
  • The observed BERT overfitting suggests that larger, more diverse annotated datasets would improve generalization and reduce the gap between training and validation performance.
  • The better handling of context-dependent classes supports pairing LLM detectors with static analysis tools to lower false alarms in real-world security workflows.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the dataset is heavily imbalanced (Reentrancy has over 1,200 samples while Dangerous Delegatecall has under 100), the 'over 90% accuracy' headline may reflect majority-class performance; macro-averaged precision/recall would be the more reliable metric, and the paper's own macro F1 numbers are lower than the overall accuracy.
  • The iterative-testing procedure described in Section IV-C, where model feedback was used to adjust the dataset and parameters, means an independent replication with a pre-registered train/validation/test split would be needed to confirm that the LLM advantage is not an artifact of test-set feedback.
  • If the fine-tuning approach transfers, it could be extended to bytecode-level detection or to severity scoring, enabling detection on contracts whose source code is not public.
  • The same fine-tuned LLM framework could be applied to other blockchain platforms, such as Rust-based smart contracts, where annotated vulnerability datasets are scarcer.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents a comparative evaluation of classical machine learning and fine-tuned language models for smart contract vulnerability detection. Using the annotated smart contract dataset of Liu et al., the authors train an LSTM, a DistilBERT model, and a BERT model to classify four vulnerability classes: Dangerous Delegatecall, Integer Overflow, Reentrancy, and Timestamp Dependency. The abstract claims that a fine-tuned LLM surpasses all other models by achieving an accuracy of over 90%, and the discussion and conclusion assert general advantages for LLMs in capturing context-rich vulnerability patterns. The body reports per-class precision, recall, F1, support, accuracy figures of 89%, 87%, and 89% for LSTM, DistilBERT, and BERT respectively, plus training curves and confusion matrices. The paper does not describe a held-out test protocol, variance estimates, or code release.

Significance. If the headline claim of over 90% accuracy were verified on an unbiased test set, the comparison of encoder-only transformer models with an LSTM baseline on a public smart contract dataset would be a useful empirical datapoint for the vulnerability-detection community. The paper addresses practically relevant vulnerability classes and reports class-wise metrics, confusion matrices, and training curves, which are appropriate ingredients for a comparative study. However, the central quantitative claim is internally contradicted by the Results section, the experimental protocol appears to allow test-set feedback during tuning, and no uncertainty or significance analysis is provided. As written, the reported numbers do not support the paper's main conclusion, so the contribution is not currently usable as a benchmark result.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract / §V, Table I] The abstract's central claim that "our fine-tuned LLM surpasses the accuracy of any other model by achieving an accuracy of over 90%" is not supported by the Results section. Section V reports LSTM accuracy of 89%, DistilBERT accuracy of 87%, and BERT accuracy of 89%, and the Conclusion states "The best overall accuracy was obtained by DistilBERT" even though 87% is the lowest reported figure. Table I's Accuracy row contains four unlabeled numbers (0.89, 0.93, 0.89, 0.93) that do not match the prose values; if 0.93 is intended as DistilBERT's test accuracy then the prose is wrong, and if it is a per-class figure then no model exceeds 90%. This direct numerical contradiction makes the headline result unverifiable from the manuscript alone.
  2. [§IV-C] The "Iterative testing" paragraph states that "feedback from the model performance helped adjust the dataset and model parameters" during testing, yet no separate validation set or final frozen test set is described anywhere in §IV, and the split proportion, stratification, and random seeds are not reported. If the test set was consulted to adjust the dataset or hyperparameters, all reported accuracies are optimistically biased and the comparison is not an unbiased estimate of generalization. The authors must specify a proper train/validation/test protocol and state that the test set was used exactly once.
  3. [§V, Table I] The experimental comparison lacks any variance or significance analysis. The support values in Table I are 10 for the DD class and 31 for the TD class per model, and the total test support appears to be 222 samples, but no confidence intervals, multiple seed runs, or statistical tests are reported. Given the class imbalance and small supports, differences of a few percentage points between models (87% vs. 89%) are within the range of sampling noise, so the conclusions about which model is "best" are not supported by the evidence presented.
  4. [§V] Section V introduces a "DeBERTa" matrix without any prior mention of DeBERTa in the methodology, the model list, or Table I. The sentence "Another matrix (DeBERTa) has achieved improved accuracy across most categories" is unexplained, and no DeBERTa results are tabulated. Together with the other inconsistencies, the results section does not currently describe a coherent, reproducible experiment.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] The sentence "several LLMs alongside various traditional machine learning algorithms such as DistilBERT model is trained and tested" has a subject-verb agreement error and does not clearly identify which models are traditional ML algorithms.
  2. [§IV-A] The dataset description says the data has 5 columns but then lists only four: filename, code snippet, vulnerability label, and encoded label.
  3. [Table I] Table I is difficult to parse: the Accuracy row values are not attached to model names, and the macro and weighted average rows are repeated for each class column; the table should be reformatted with one column per model.
  4. [§V and Table I] The terms "Dangerous Delegatecall," "DC," and "DD" are used inconsistently; the authors should define a single acronym and use it consistently.
  5. [§III] The rhetorical question "How do we trust, accept or understand security outcome that we are aware of it generates more false alarms?" is not appropriate in a research report and should be removed or rewritten.
  6. [References] Reference [26] is cited as the source of the dataset, but the linked arXiv paper is a fuzzing paper; the authors should verify that the citation and dataset provenance are correct.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The central performance claim rests on accuracies obtained after test-set feedback was used to adjust the model and dataset, so the reported 'over 90%' is not an independent prediction.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section IV-C, Experimental Setup, 'Iterative testing' bullet]
    "As the testing progressed, feedback from the model performance helped adjust the dataset and model parameters, enabling continuous improvement and fine-tuning of detection."

    The paper's evaluation loop uses test performance as a tuning signal: feedback from model performance is explicitly used to adjust both the dataset and model parameters during 'iterative testing,' and no separate validation set is described. Any accuracy value reported after such feedback reflects a model fitted to the test distribution, not a prediction of generalization on unseen data. The abstract's central claim that the fine-tuned LLM 'surpasses the accuracy of any other model by achieving an accuracy of over 90%' is based on these post-feedback metrics. By the paper's own procedure, the reported superiority is therefore not an independent measurement but a by-construction outcome of test-set-informed tuning. This is the load-bearing step for the paper's headline result.

full rationale

This is an empirical evaluation paper, not a formal derivation, so most circularity patterns (self-citation chains, ansatz smuggling, renamed known results) do not apply. The one substantive circular step is in the experimental setup: Section IV-C states that 'feedback from the model performance helped adjust the dataset and model parameters' during 'iterative testing,' with no separate validation set described. That makes the reported test accuracies optimistically biased, because the test set has influenced the model. The central claim of 'over 90%' accuracy depends on these metrics, so the claim is not a clean prediction. Additionally, the results section is internally inconsistent: Section V reports LSTM accuracy 89%, DistilBERT 87%, and BERT 89%, while the abstract claims over 90% and 'surpasses the accuracy of any other model'; the only 0.93 value in Table I is ambiguously placed. These inconsistencies are correctness and reporting issues rather than circularity, but they reinforce that the headline result is unverifiable from the manuscript. No load-bearing self-citations or imported uniqueness claims were found. Score 6 reflects one central 'prediction' (the reported accuracy comparison) that reduces, by the paper's own iterative-testing description, to test-set-informed fitting.

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

The paper adds empirical results but no new theory or entities; its claims rest on an unverified public dataset, unreported hyperparameters, and a single run, so the free parameters and assumptions above are what the central claim depends on.

free parameters (3)
  • Model hyperparameters (learning rate, batch size, epochs, max sequence length, dropout, etc.) = Not reported
    The paper says hyperparameter tuning was performed (Section IV-C) but gives no values, and these choices directly affect the reported accuracies.
  • Train/validation/test split proportion = Approximately 10% test (222 of 2,217 samples), but not stated
    The test support in Table I sums to 222; the split is not specified, and different splits change the comparison.
  • Class balance handling (e.g., class weights, oversampling, threshold tuning) = Not reported
    The dataset is heavily imbalanced (RE 1,218 vs DD 97); no mitigation is described, so the reported accuracy is dominated by the majority class.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption BERT and DistilBERT pretrained weights transfer meaningfully to Solidity source code after fine-tuning
    The models are pretrained on natural language and code corpora; the paper assumes this transfer works for the (possibly small) code snippets in the dataset.
  • domain assumption The Liu et al. dataset vulnerability labels are ground truth
    The paper relies on the public annotated dataset without verifying label quality or annotator agreement.
  • domain assumption The reported single-run results are representative of model performance
    No multiple runs, seeds, or confidence intervals are reported, so the observed differences (e.g., 87% vs 93%) may be noise.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Leveraging Large Language Models and Machine Learning for Smart Contract Vulnerability Detection." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IL7NCEDI

@misc{pith2026250102229,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Leveraging Large Language Models and Machine Learning for Smart Contract Vulnerability Detection},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IL7NCEDI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.02229}
}
read the original abstract

As blockchain technology and smart contracts become widely adopted, securing them throughout every stage of the transaction process is essential. The concern of improved security for smart contracts is to find and detect vulnerabilities using classical Machine Learning (ML) models and fine-tuned Large Language Models (LLM). The robustness of such work rests on a labeled smart contract dataset that includes annotated vulnerabilities on which several LLMs alongside various traditional machine learning algorithms such as DistilBERT model is trained and tested. We train and test machine learning algorithms to classify smart contract codes according to vulnerability types in order to compare model performance. Having fine-tuned the LLMs specifically for smart contract code classification should help in getting better results when detecting several types of well-known vulnerabilities, such as Reentrancy, Integer Overflow, Timestamp Dependency and Dangerous Delegatecall. From our initial experimental results, it can be seen that our fine-tuned LLM surpasses the accuracy of any other model by achieving an accuracy of over 90%, and this advances the existing vulnerability detection benchmarks. Such performance provides a great deal of evidence for LLMs ability to describe the subtle patterns in the code that traditional ML models could miss. Thus, we compared each of the ML and LLM models to give a good overview of each models strengths, from which we can choose the most effective one for real-world applications in smart contract security. Our research combines machine learning and large language models to provide a rich and interpretable framework for detecting different smart contract vulnerabilities, which lays a foundation for a more secure blockchain ecosystem.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.02229 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Customized layer structure of data flow diagram for LSTM, Distil [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Training and validation accuracy plots for LSTM, DistilBERT, and BERT models over 20 epochs. All models demonstrate increasing accuracy during [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Training and validation loss plots for LSTM, DistilBERT, and BERT models over 20 epochs. While all models show a decreasing trend in validation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Confusion matrices for LSTM, DistilBERT, and BERT models, visualizing the distribution of true and predicted labels. All models demonstrate a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

  1. [8]

    Robust vulnerability detection in solidity-based ethereum smart contracts using fine-tuned transformer encoder models,

    J. Kim, S. Lee, H. Kim et al. , “Robust vulnerability detection in solidity-based ethereum smart contracts using fine-tuned transformer encoder models,” IEEE Access , 2024. [Online]. Available: https: //doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3482389

    arXiv 2024

  2. [1]

    Ethereum smart contract vulnerability detection and machine learning-driven solutions: A systematic literature review,

    R. Kiani and V . S. Sheng, “Ethereum smart contract vulnerability detection and machine learning-driven solutions: A systematic literature review,” Electronics, Jun. 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.mdpi. com/2079-9292/13/12/2295

    work page 2024

  3. [2]

    A survey on ethereum smart contract vulnerability detection using machine learning,

    O. S ¨ur¨uc¨u, U. Yeprem, C. Wilkinson, W. Hilal, S. A. Gadsden, J. Yawney, N. Alsadi, and A. Giuliano, “A survey on ethereum smart contract vulnerability detection using machine learning,” in Disruptive Technologies in Information Sciences VI , M. Blowers, R. D. Hall, and V . R. Dasari, Eds., vol. 12117, International Society for Optics and Photonics. SP...

    work page doi:10.1117/12.2618899 2022

  4. [3]

    How effective are smart contract analysis tools? evaluating smart contract static analysis tools using bug injection,

    A. Ghaleb and K. Pattabiraman, “How effective are smart contract analysis tools? evaluating smart contract static analysis tools using bug injection,” in Proceedings of the 29th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis , 2020, pp. 415–427. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3395363.3397385

    arXiv 2020

  5. [4]

    Attention-based machine learning model for smart contract vulnerability detection,

    Y . Sun and L. Gu, “Attention-based machine learning model for smart contract vulnerability detection,” Journal of Physics: Conference Series,

    work page

  6. [5]

    Vulnerability analysis of smart contract for blockchain-based iot applications: a machine learning approach,

    Q. Zhou, K. Zheng, K. Zhang, L. Hou, and X. Wang, “Vulnerability analysis of smart contract for blockchain-based iot applications: a machine learning approach,” IEEE Internet of Things Journal , vol. 9, no. 24, pp. 24 695–24 707, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/JIOT.2022.3196269

    work page arXiv 2022

  7. [6]

    Deep learning- based solution for smart contract vulnerabilities detection,

    X. Tang, Y . Du, A. Lai, Z. Zhang, and L. Shi, “Deep learning- based solution for smart contract vulnerabilities detection,” Scientific Reports, vol. 13, no. 1, p. 20106, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-47219-0

    work page doi:10.1038/s41598-023-47219-0 2023

  8. [7]

    Smart contract vulnerability detection: The role of large language model (llm),

    B. Boi, C. Esposito, and S. Lee, “Smart contract vulnerability detection: The role of large language model (llm),” ACM SIGAPP Applied Computing Review , vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 19–29, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3687251.3687253

    work page arXiv 2024

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    Long short-term memory,

    S. Hochreiter and J. Schmidhuber, “Long short-term memory,” Neural Computation, vol. 9, no. 8, pp. 1735–1780, 1997. [Online]. Available: url=”https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-24797-2 4”

    1997 doi

  2. [10]

    Distilbert, a distilled version of bert: smaller, faster, cheaper and lighter,

    V . Sanh, “Distilbert, a distilled version of bert: smaller, faster, cheaper and lighter,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.01108 , 2019. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/1910.01108

    1910 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding,

    J. Devlin, “Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04805 , 2018. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/1810.04805

    2018 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Reentrancy vulnerability identification in ethereum smart contracts,

    N. F. Samreen and M. H. Alalfi, “Reentrancy vulnerability identification in ethereum smart contracts,” in 2020 IEEE International Workshop on Blockchain Oriented Software Engineering (IWBOSE) . IEEE, 2020, pp. 22–29. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/IWBOSE50093. 20...

    2020

  5. [13]

    Static analysis of integer overflow of smart contracts in ethereum,

    E. Lai and W. Luo, “Static analysis of integer overflow of smart contracts in ethereum,” in Proceedings of the 2020 4th International Conference on Cryptography, Security and Privacy , 2020, pp. 110–115. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3377644.3377650

    2020

  6. [14]

    Smart contracts: security patterns in the ethereum ecosystem and solidity,

    M. Wohrer and U. Zdun, “Smart contracts: security patterns in the ethereum ecosystem and solidity,” in 2018 International Workshop on Blockchain Oriented Software Engineering (IWBOSE) . IEEE, 2018, pp. 2–8. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/IWBOSE.2018. 8327565

    2018 doi

  7. [15]

    Slither: a static analysis framework for smart contracts,

    J. Feist, G. Grieco, and A. Groce, “Slither: a static analysis framework for smart contracts,” in 2019 IEEE/ACM 2nd International Workshop on Emerging Trends in Software Engineering for Blockchain (WETSEB). IEEE, 2019, pp. 8–15. [Online]. Available: https: //doi.org/10.1109/WE...

    2019

  8. [16]

    Smart contract vulnerability detection based on abstract syntax tree,

    H. Yang, J. Zhang, X. Gu, and Z. Cui, “Smart contract vulnerability detection based on abstract syntax tree,” 2022 8th International Symposium on System Security, Safety, and Reliability (ISSSR) , 2022. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/ISSSR56778.2022.00032

    2022

  9. [17]

    Ethereum smart contract vulnerability detection and machine learning-driven solutions: A systematic literature review,

    R. Kiani and V . S. Sheng, “Ethereum smart contract vulnerability detection and machine learning-driven solutions: A systematic literature review,” Electronics, vol. 13, no. 12, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9292/13/12/2295

    2024

  10. [18]

    Smart contract vulnerability detection using deep learning algorithms on evm bytecode,

    L. Prifti, B. C ¸ ic ¸o, and D. A. Karras, “Smart contract vulnerability detection using deep learning algorithms on evm bytecode,” 2024 13th Mediterranean Conference on Embedded Computing (MECO) ,

    2024

  11. [19]

    Gvd-net: Graph embedding- based machine learning model for smart contract vulnerability detection,

    Z. Wang, Q. Zheng, and Y . Sun, “Gvd-net: Graph embedding- based machine learning model for smart contract vulnerability detection,” 2022 International Conference on Algorithms, Data Mining, and Information Technology (ADMIT) , 2022. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.110...

    2022

  12. [20]

    Detection of vulnerabilities of blockchain smart contracts,

    D. He, R. Wu, X. Li, S. Chan, and M. Guizani, “Detection of vulnerabilities of blockchain smart contracts,” IEEE Internet of Things Journal, vol. 10, no. 14, pp. 12 178–12 185, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/JIOT.2023.3241544

    2023

  13. [21]

    Smart contract vulnerability detection using graph neural networks,

    Y . Zhuang, Z. Liu, P. Qian, Q. Liu, X. Wang, and Q. He, “Smart contract vulnerability detection using graph neural networks,” in Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth International Conference on International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence , 2021, pp. 3283–3290. [Onli...

    2021 doi

  14. [22]

    Effectively generating vulnerable transaction sequences in smart contracts with reinforcement learning-guided fuzzing,

    J. Su, H.-N. Dai, L. Zhao, Z. Zheng, and X. Luo, “Effectively generating vulnerable transaction sequences in smart contracts with reinforcement learning-guided fuzzing,” in Proceedings of the 37th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering , 2022, pp. ...

    2022

  15. [23]

    Scgformer: Smart contract vulnerability detection based on control flow graph and transformer,

    K. Gong, X. Song, N. Wang, C. Wang, and H. Zhu, “Scgformer: Smart contract vulnerability detection based on control flow graph and transformer,” IET Blockchain , 2023. [Online]. Available: https: //doi.org/10.1049/blc2.12046

    2023 doi

  16. [26]

    Rethinking smart contract fuzzing: Fuzzing with invocation ordering and important branch revisiting,

    Z. Liu, P. Qian, J. Yang, L. Liu, X. Xu, Q. He, and X. Zhang, “Rethinking smart contract fuzzing: Fuzzing with invocation ordering and important branch revisiting,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.03943 ,

    arXiv

  17. [27]

    Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.16073

    [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.16073

    arXiv

  18. [28]

    Fundamentals of recurrent neural network (rnn) and long short-term memory (lstm) network,

    A. Sherstinsky, “Fundamentals of recurrent neural network (rnn) and long short-term memory (lstm) network,” Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena, vol. 404, p. 132306, 2020. [Online]. Available: https: //www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167278919305974

    2020

  19. [29]

    Bidirectional lstm with attention mechanism and convolutional layer for text classification,

    G. Liu and J. Guo, “Bidirectional lstm with attention mechanism and convolutional layer for text classification,” Neurocomputing, vol. 337, pp. 325–338, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/ science/article/pii/S0925231219301067

    2019

  20. [30]

    K. G. group. Kerasnlp models. [Online]. Available: https://keras.io/api/ keras nlp/models/

  21. [31]

    Assbert: Active and semi-supervised bert for smart contract vulnerability detection,

    X. Sun, L. Tu, J. Zhang, J. Cai, B. Li, and Y . Wang, “Assbert: Active and semi-supervised bert for smart contract vulnerability detection,” Journal of Information Security and Applications , vol. 73, p. 103423, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/ science...

    2023

  22. [32]

    Smartbugs: A framework to analyze solidity smart contracts,

    J. F. Ferreira, P. Cruz, T. Durieux, and R. Abreu, “Smartbugs: A framework to analyze solidity smart contracts,” in Proceedings of the 35th IEEE/ACM international conference on automated software engineering , 2020, pp. 1349–1352. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3...

    2020

  23. [33]

    Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining approach,

    Y . Liu, “Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining approach,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11692 , vol. 364, 2019. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/1907.11692

    1907 arXiv

  24. [34]

    Digital twins-enabled zero touch network: A smart contract and explainable ai integrated cybersecurity framework,

    R. Kumar, A. Aljuhani, D. Javeed, P. Kumar, S. Islam, and A. N. Islam, “Digital twins-enabled zero touch network: A smart contract and explainable ai integrated cybersecurity framework,” Future Generation Computer Systems , vol. 156, pp. 191–205, 2024. [Online]. Available: htt...

    2024

  25. [35]

    Can smart contracts become smart? an overview of transaction impact on ethereum dapp engineering,

    E. Onica and M. Georgic ˘a, “Can smart contracts become smart? an overview of transaction impact on ethereum dapp engineering,” in Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Distributed Infrastructure for the Common Good , 2023, pp. 31–36. [Online]. Available: https://do...

    2023

  26. [37]

    Gpt-4 technical report,

    J. Achiam, S. Adler, S. Agarwal, L. Ahmad, I. Akkaya, F. L. Aleman, D. Almeida, J. Altenschmidt, S. Altman, S. Anadkat et al. , “Gpt-4 technical report,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774 , 2023. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.08774

    2023 arXiv

  27. [2020]

    Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2002.08155

    [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2002.08155

    2002 arXiv

  28. [2021]

    Available: https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1820/ 1/012004

    [Online]. Available: https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1820/ 1/012004

    doi

  29. [2023]

    Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/TIFS.2023.3237370

    [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/TIFS.2023.3237370

    2023

  30. [2024]

    Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/MECO62516.2024

    [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/MECO62516.2024. 10577852

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.