Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2512.06933

TxSum: User-Centered Ethereum Transaction Understanding with Micro-Level Semantic Grounding

Zifan Peng·Jingyi Zheng·Yule Liu·Huaiyu Jia·Qiming Ye·Jingyu Liu·Xufeng Yang·Mingchen Li·Qingyuan Gong·Xuechao Wang·Xinlei He
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Understanding the economic intent of Ethereum transactions is critical for user safety, yet current tools expose only raw on-chain data or surface-level intent, leading to widespread ``blind signing'' (approving transactions without understanding them). Through interviews with 16 Web3 users, we find that effective explanations should be structured, risk-aware, and grounded at the token-flow level. Motivated by these findings, we formulate TxSum, a new domain-grounded NLP task for DeFi transaction explanation, and construct a dataset of 187 complex Ethereum transactions with 2,375 token-flow annotations and transaction-level summaries. We further introduce MATEX, a grounded multi-agent framework for high-stakes transaction explanation. It selectively retrieves external knowledge under uncertainty and audits explanations against raw traces to improve token-flow-level factual consistency. MATEX achieves the strongest overall explanation quality, especially on micro-level factuality and intent quality. It improves user comprehension on complex transactions from 52.9% to 76.5% over the strongest baseline and raises malicious-transaction rejection from 36.0% to 88.0%, while maintaining a low false-rejection rate on benign transactions.

Explore related subjects

cs.CEcs.CLcs.HC

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Zifan Peng, Jingyi Zheng, Yule Liu, Huaiyu Jia, Qiming Ye, Jingyu Liu, Xufeng Yang, Mingchen Li, Qingyuan Gong, Xuechao Wang, Xinlei He. 2026-08-31. TxSum: User-Centered Ethereum Transaction Understanding with Micro-Level Semantic Grounding. https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.06933

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

Discover connections

cs.CE subjectcs.CL subjectcs.HC subject

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Domain-Grounded Tool Orchestration for LLM-Guided Scientific Analysis

Scientific analysis workflows encode deep domain knowledge through sequences of tightly coupled operations where correctness depends on tool selection, execution order, and parameterization. A CFD engineer investigating flow separation must extract wall shear stress, identify zero-crossings in skin friction, and confirm with boundary-layer profiles: a chain that requires both domain expertise and proficiency with visualization tools. Current approaches to LLM-assisted scientific visualization generate scripts that encode this knowledge implicitly, and often incorrectly, producing code that executes but yields wrong results. We present an architecture that separates intent interpretation (LLM) from execution (deterministic domain tools) from explanation (LLM), connected by the Model Context Protocol (MCP) and grounded by domain ontologies that constrain planning to valid analysis chains. We instantiate the architecture in two domains on the same ParaView server infrastructure: computational fluid dynamics post-processing and topological data analysis via the Topology ToolKit (TTK). Adding the second domain required only an ontology and tool wrappers around existing filters, with no change to the architecture, protocol, or deployment. By construction the design removes whole classes of failure that affect script generation (such as API hallucination and missing pipeline stages) and narrows the strategic errors that remain. An ablation across both domains locates the ontology's empirical effect: it does not change which tools the planner selects, which is already reliable, but corrects how the model interprets results, raising interpretation accuracy from 0.41 to 0.91, and only when the relevant fact is retrieved in scoped rather than bulk form. ParaView's client-server model carries analysis to production-scale datasets through a thin browser client.

cs.CE↗
arXiv2026

The Analyst in the Prompt: Role, Retrieval, and Memory Biases in LLM Financial Analysis

Large Language Models (LLMs) increasingly use user context such as memory, profiles, and role prompts to personalize their responses. This personalization can affect evidence-based judgment: the same evidence may lead to different conclusions under different user contexts. Finance provides a high-stakes setting to study this problem because decisions often depend on interpreting long and complex documents. We test this using 3,575 SEC filings across twelve LLMs. We compare persona-conditioned retrieval, neutral retrieval, and memory-framed context to separate the effect of evidence selection from the effect of interpretation. We find that most user-context spillover comes from how models interpret the same evidence under different roles, rather than from retrieving different evidence. We then test two simple mitigation strategies: expressing the same investor mindset as a user profile instead of an assistant role, and separating evidence-based and personalized outputs. Both reduce spillover, but neither removes it completely, and their effectiveness varies substantially across models.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

What Do CAE Simulation Agents Really Need Beyond a Generic Harness?

Computer-aided engineering (CAE) simulation is among the largest and most demanding areas of engineering, where setting up a solver such as OpenFOAM, FEniCS, or COMSOL takes real expertise. Large language model (LLM) agents promise to turn a natural-language request into a working simulation, and recent CAE agents add simulation-specific machinery: multi-agent decomposition, domain retrieval, and scripted reflection. That machinery suited weak base models; modern harnesses already supply multi-turn reasoning, tool use, and execution feedback. We ask what a CAE simulation agent still needs beyond a generic harness. With information access and repair budget held fixed, a single-agent harness matches or beats multi-agent specialized systems (FoamBench 96.4\% vs.\ 88.2\%). Ablations trace this to capabilities the harness already provides: execution-feedback repair lifts FoamBench from 71.8\% with no repair round to 96.4\%, while scripted reflection adds nothing. The one input that still helps is domain knowledge supplied as solver tutorials, our largest measured gain (80.9\% to 96.4\%).

cs.CE↗