Searcharxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2609.08247

zScore-N: A Neural Network for On-Chain Wallet Reputation Scoring

Girish G N·Ashutosh Sahoo·Akshay SP·Gurukiran S·Dhanashekar Kandaswamy
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Wallet reputation scores decide who receives an airdrop, who can borrow, and who enters an allowlist across decentralised finance. They almost always begin as hand-written formulas: compositions of clamped logarithmic, linear and square-root transforms over behavioural features, with every threshold and point award set by hand. Such a formula is readable and deterministic, but it is piecewise and non-differentiable, it cannot improve as data accumulates, and it cannot distinguish a feature that is genuinely zero from one its pipeline failed to capture. We present zScore-N, the neural network that replaced ours in production. The formula served as its teacher: calibrated against 5,208,952 wallets sampled across 2019-2024 and verified to reproduce production output to within 2.3e-13, it supplies unlimited labelled training data at zero label noise. The trained network reproduces it to 0.58 points RMSE on the 1000-point scale (R^2 = 0.99997), against 2.25 for gradient-boosted trees and 28.04 for linear regression on identical features and splits. Trained with missing-value masks against uncorrupted targets, it halves the error that incomplete data introduces: at 10% feature-level missingness the formula drifts 51.4 points from its own complete-data output with a systematic -12.5 point bias, while the network drifts 17.9. The network carries the score at production scale, across a population of millions of wallets spanning six orders of magnitude in size and activity.

Explore related subjects

cs.AI

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Girish G N, Ashutosh Sahoo, Akshay SP, Gurukiran S, Dhanashekar Kandaswamy. 2026-09-08. zScore-N: A Neural Network for On-Chain Wallet Reputation Scoring. https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.08247

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

Discover connections

cs.AI subject

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Decoupling Readiness from Release for Tail-Aware Scheduling of Agentic LLM Workflows

Agentic LLM workflows consist of sequences of model turns interleaved with tool interactions, so their end-to-end completion time depends not only on inference speed but also on when ready turns are released. Most runtimes release each turn immediately upon readiness. Under contention, this eager release policy can accumulate released but unfinished work; once submitted, those turns can no longer be reordered by the workflow-level policy, increasing tail latency. We present a tail-risk-aware turn release scheduling method that jointly decides which ready turn to release next and how much released but unfinished work to maintain. The method uses a mean--Conditional Value-at-Risk (CVaR) objective to capture the evolving tail risk of unfinished workflows, incorporates online estimates of turn work when prioritizing ready turns, and adapts the released work budget to observed queue pressure. We evaluate the method using real agent execution traces from software engineering tasks across multiple LLMs and workflow arrival rates. The method performs comparably to eager release under light load and substantially reduces the P95 of workflow flow time under contention, achieving up to a \(3.50\times\) speedup.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

Demystifying the Privacy-Utility Trade-off in LLM Interactions

The integration of Large Language Models into daily tasks relies on context-rich instructions, inevitably exposing sensitive user information. Current privacy-preserving methods typically employ context-agnostic static rules, causing severe utility degradation. However, the specific mechanisms governing how sanitization impacts downstream performance remain largely underexplored. To address this, we conduct a systematic analysis to deconstruct the privacy-utility trade-off, uncovering three underlying mechanisms: (1) Context-Dependent Utility, which first establishes when to sanitize by revealing that data value shifts from critical constraints to dispensable noise based on user intent; (2) Strategic Adaptation, which subsequently determines how to sanitize by dictating that the choice between removal and replacement depends on the task's reliance on factual integrity versus structural coherence; and (3) Combinatorial Interplay, which finally extends the protection scope by demonstrating that attributes form a semantic web of synergistic dependencies or antagonistic redundancies. Guided by these insights, we introduce an intent-driven local protection framework. By distilling a lightweight model Veilmind-4B to drive a dynamic extraction-sanitization-restoration pipeline, our approach reaches a low-leakage privacy point while preserving substantially higher response utility than existing privacy-oriented baselines, advancing the privacy-utility trade-off toward the Pareto frontier.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

Defining AI Agents: A Compendium of Criteria, Metrics, and Benchmarks

The term agent in artificial intelligence lacks a standard definition, complicating the evaluation, comparison, and reproducibility of AI agent research. We address this ambiguity through a survey organized around five dimensions of agenticness: environmental interaction, learning and adaptation, autonomy, goal-directed behavior, and temporal coherence. For each dimension, we examine how the underlying capability has been conceptualized across prior work and synthesize the metrics, benchmarks, and evaluation frameworks used to assess it. This review provides a structured account of the current landscape of agent evaluation, highlighting both established approaches and areas where evaluation remains limited or inconsistent. We additionally introduce the Agent Compendium, a public-facing digital resource that organizes and extends the evaluation methods identified through this review. Together, the survey and compendium provide a common structure for evaluating and comparing agent capabilities across AI systems, supporting more reproducible research, clearer communication, and more systematic study of artificial agents.

cs.AI↗