Research Article
A Smart Contract Vulnerability Detection Model Based on Syntactic and Semantic Fusion Learning
Table 4
Comparison of experimental results of each module.
| | Accuracy | Precision | Recall | F1 |
| ImplicitVisibility | CFG | 86.08 | 85.96 | 87.74 | 86.84 | AST | 88.00 | 92.76 | 83.60 | 87.94 | AST + CFG | 89.00 | 87.58 | 92.04 | 89.75 |
| IntegerOverflow | CFG | 92.92 | 91.03 | 96.06 | 93.48 | AST | 94.08 | 93.37 | 95.58 | 94.47 | AST + CFG | 95.58 | 94.08 | 97.79 | 95.90 |
| IntegerUnderflow | CFG | 95.25 | 91.59 | 83.40 | 87.31 | AST | 94.66 | 90.91 | 80.85 | 85.59 | AST + CFG | 96.42 | 92.86 | 88.51 | 90.63 |
| TimeDependency | CFG | 95.42 | 89.33 | 86.64 | 87.96 | AST | 98.25 | 96.48 | 92.24 | 95.42 | AST + CFG | 98.25 | 97.52 | 94.85 | 94.81 |
| Reentrancy | CFG | 97.33 | 58.06 | 48.65 | 52.94 | AST | 98.58 | 76.32 | 73.68 | 77.33 | AST + CFG | 98.64 | 90.91 | 78.38 | 75.36 |
|
|