CyberIntel ⬡ News
★ Saved ◆ Cyber Reads
← Back ◬ AI & Machine Learning Apr 07, 2026

LiquiLM: Bridging the Semantic Gap in Liquidity Flaw Audit via DCN and LLMs

arXiv Security Archived Apr 07, 2026 ✓ Full text saved

arXiv:2604.03860v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Traditional consensus mechanisms, such as Proof of Stake (PoS), increasingly reveal an excessive dependency on large liquidity providers. Although the Proof of Liquidity (PoL) mechanism serves as a critical paradigm for incentivizing sustained liquidity provision and ensuring market stability, its transition from asset staking to active liquidity management significantly increases the complexity of underlying smart contract economic models and inte

Full text archived locally
✦ AI Summary · Claude Sonnet


    Computer Science > Cryptography and Security [Submitted on 4 Apr 2026] LiquiLM: Bridging the Semantic Gap in Liquidity Flaw Audit via DCN and LLMs Zekai Liu, Xiaoqi Li, Wenkai Li, Zongwei Li Traditional consensus mechanisms, such as Proof of Stake (PoS), increasingly reveal an excessive dependency on large liquidity providers. Although the Proof of Liquidity (PoL) mechanism serves as a critical paradigm for incentivizing sustained liquidity provision and ensuring market stability, its transition from asset staking to active liquidity management significantly increases the complexity of underlying smart contract economic models and interaction logic. This renders hidden liquidity logic flaws difficult to detect via traditional methods, seriously threatening the system stability and user asset security of mainstream DeFi and emerging PoL ecosystems. To address this, we propose the LiquiLM framework, which integrates Large Language Models (LLMs) with a Dynamic Co-Attention Network (DCN). By establishing a dynamic interaction between liquidity-critical contracts and flaw descriptions, the framework effectively bridges the semantic gap between underlying code implementations and high-level liquidity intents. We evaluate the performance of LiquiLM on 1,490 validation contracts (covering precision, recall, specificity, and F1-score). The results show that it achieves significant effectiveness in auditing and explaining liquidity flaws: in experiments using Gemini 3 Pro and GPT-4o as backbone models, respectively, the F1-scores both exceed 90%. Furthermore, through an in-depth audit of 1,380 real-world PoL and Ethereum economic contracts, LiquiLM successfully identifies 238 high-risk contracts and assists in discovering 10 vulnerabilities that have received CVE certification. Subjects: Cryptography and Security (cs.CR) Cite as: arXiv:2604.03860 [cs.CR]   (or arXiv:2604.03860v1 [cs.CR] for this version)   https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2604.03860 Focus to learn more Submission history From: Zekai Liu [view email] [v1] Sat, 4 Apr 2026 20:49:09 UTC (5,047 KB) Access Paper: HTML (experimental) view license Current browse context: cs.CR < prev   |   next > new | recent | 2026-04 Change to browse by: cs References & Citations NASA ADS Google Scholar Semantic Scholar Export BibTeX Citation Bookmark Bibliographic Tools Bibliographic and Citation Tools Bibliographic Explorer Toggle Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?) Connected Papers Toggle Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?) Litmaps Toggle Litmaps (What is Litmaps?) scite.ai Toggle scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?) Code, Data, Media Demos Related Papers About arXivLabs Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)
    💬 Team Notes
    Article Info
    Source
    arXiv Security
    Category
    ◬ AI & Machine Learning
    Published
    Apr 07, 2026
    Archived
    Apr 07, 2026
    Full Text
    ✓ Saved locally
    Open Original ↗