REVIEW 1 cited by
Hyperion: Unveiling DApp Inconsistencies using LLM and Dataflow-Guided Symbolic Execution
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Hyperion: Unveiling DApp Inconsistencies using LLM and Dataflow-Guided Symbolic Execution
read the original abstract
The rapid advancement of blockchain platforms has significantly accelerated the growth of decentralized applications (DApps). Similar to traditional applications, DApps integrate front-end descriptions that showcase their features to attract users, and back-end smart contracts for executing their business logic. However, inconsistencies between the features promoted in front-end descriptions and those actually implemented in the contract can confuse users and undermine DApps's trustworthiness. In this paper, we first conducted an empirical study to identify seven types of inconsistencies, each exemplified by a real-world DApp. Furthermore, we introduce HYPERION, an approach designed to automatically identify inconsistencies between front-end descriptions and back-end code implementation in DApps. This method leverages a fine-tuned large language model LLaMA2 to analyze DApp descriptions and employs dataflow-guided symbolic execution for contract bytecode analysis. Finally, HYPERION reports the inconsistency based on predefined detection patterns. The experiment on our ground truth dataset consisting of 54 DApps shows that HYPERION reaches 84.06% overall recall and 92.06% overall precision in reporting DApp inconsistencies. We also implement HYPERION to analyze 835 real-world DApps. The experimental results show that HYPERION discovers 459 real-world DApps containing at least one inconsistency.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
PhoenixRepair: Rethinking Repair Strategy Exploration in Software Agents
A multi-agent repair framework that samples multiple edit locations and iteratively reflects on patch attempts reaches 76.0% Pass@1 on SWE-bench-Verified, up to a 7.8% relative gain over SWE-agent.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.