pith. sign in

arxiv: 2603.06029 · v1 · pith:EAIVDTL3new · submitted 2026-03-06 · 💻 cs.SE · cs.CR

When Specifications Meet Reality: Uncovering API Inconsistencies in Ethereum Infrastructure

Jie Ma , Ningyu He , Jinwen Xi , Mingzhe Xing , Liangxin Liu , Jiushenzi Luo , Xiaopeng Fu , Chiachih Wu
show 3 more authors
Haoyu Wang Ying Gao Yinliang Yue
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 15:40 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.SE cs.CR
keywords API testingdifferential testingEthereum clientsspecification-guided testingLLM filteringbug detectionblockchain APIssoftware inconsistencies
0
0 comments X

The pith

Specification-guided testing with language model filtering uncovers 72 API bugs across Ethereum clients.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper introduces APIDiffer to automatically detect when Ethereum client implementations deviate from their official API specifications. It generates test inputs directly from the specs, creating both valid requests filled with live blockchain data and invalid ones to probe boundaries. Large language models then review the results to separate real inconsistencies from acceptable variations between clients. This matters because the APIs are the only interface for users to interact with a blockchain securing hundreds of billions in value, so mismatches can cause financial losses or service failures. When run on all eleven major clients, the approach surfaced many previously unknown issues that developers have since confirmed or repaired.

Core claim

APIDiffer is the first specification-guided differential testing framework that converts API specifications into test suites for Ethereum clients. It performs specification-guided test input generation to produce syntactically valid and invalid requests enriched with real-time blockchain data, paired with specification-aware false positive filtering that uses large language models to distinguish genuine bugs from acceptable implementation variations. Evaluation across all eleven major clients uncovered 72 bugs, of which 90.28 percent have been confirmed or fixed by developers, while delivering up to 89.67 percent higher code coverage and 37.38 percent lower false positive rates than prior ad

What carries the argument

APIDiffer, the specification-guided differential testing framework that generates test inputs from API specifications and applies large language models to filter false positives from genuine inconsistencies.

If this is right

  • Developers can incorporate the generated test cases into their continuous integration pipelines to catch inconsistencies earlier.
  • The reduced false positive rate allows teams to spend less time triaging reports and more time fixing real defects.
  • Higher code coverage means more of the client implementation surface is exercised during routine testing.
  • As new API specifications are released, the same automated process can be reapplied without requiring additional manual test writing.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same specification-to-test pipeline could be adapted for other blockchains that publish formal API descriptions.
  • Improvements in language model accuracy would directly translate into even lower false positive rates and broader adoption.
  • Widespread use might eventually pressure client teams toward greater behavioral uniformity, reducing user-visible discrepancies.
  • The method offers a template for testing APIs in any domain where specifications exist but manual differential testing is too slow.

Load-bearing premise

That large language models can reliably tell genuine API bugs apart from acceptable implementation variations without missing real problems or introducing new errors.

What would settle it

Inject a known, reproducible bug into one client's API implementation and verify whether APIDiffer reports it as a genuine inconsistency rather than filtering it out as a variation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.06029 by Chiachih Wu, Haoyu Wang, Jie Ma, Jinwen Xi, Jiushenzi Luo, Liangxin Liu, Mingzhe Xing, Ningyu He, Xiaopeng Fu, Ying Gao, Yinliang Yue.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: A motivating example of a real-world Ethereum client API bug on Etherscan. In this case, the transfer [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The relationship among users, Ethereum nodes, Ethereum blockchain network, and EL/CL clients [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The workflow overview of APIDiffer. The inputs include EL and CL client API specifications, and the output is the detailed bug report. Regarding Challenge #2, we propose a specification-aware false positive filtering method to distinguish genuine implementation bugs from acceptable client variations. APIDiffer develops a multi-layered filtering approach that understands the nuanced nature of blockchain API… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The specification of Ethereum client API [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Test requests generated by APIDiffer, with orange highlights indicating syntactically or semantically invalid fields. that collectively represent 100% and 99.93% of mainnet deployments, respectively [1]. Each of the nodes in our testnet combines one EL client with one CL client, running in Docker containers and communicating via standardized APIs [32]. To minimize environmental false positives and ensure r… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: An example prompt used to filter out false positives caused by semantically equivalent responses with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: A specification bug in Beacon-API where the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: An unhandled nil pointer exception in Erigon’s [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_8.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The Ethereum ecosystem, which secures over $381 billion in assets, fundamentally relies on client APIs as the sole interface between users and the blockchain. However, these critical APIs suffer from widespread implementation inconsistencies, which can lead to financial discrepancies, degraded user experiences, and threats to network reliability. Despite this criticality, existing testing approaches remain manual and incomplete: they require extensive domain expertise, struggle to keep pace with Ethereum's rapid evolution, and fail to distinguish genuine bugs from acceptable implementation variations. We present APIDiffer, the first specification-guided differential testing framework designed to automatically detect API inconsistencies across Ethereum's diverse client ecosystem. APIDiffer transforms API specifications into comprehensive test suites through two key innovations: (1) specification-guided test input generation that creates both syntactically valid and invalid requests enriched with real-time blockchain data, and (2) specification-aware false positive filtering that leverages large language models to distinguish genuine bugs from acceptable variations. Our evaluation across all 11 major Ethereum clients reveals the pervasiveness of API bugs in production systems. APIDiffer uncovered 72 bugs, with 90.28% already confirmed or fixed by developers. Beyond these raw numbers, APIDiffer achieves up to 89.67% higher code coverage than existing tools and reduces false positive rates by 37.38%. The Ethereum community's response validates our impact: developers have integrated our test cases, expressed interest in adopting our methodology, and escalated one bug to the official Ethereum Project Management meeting.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper presents APIDiffer, a specification-guided differential testing framework for Ethereum client APIs. It transforms API specifications into test suites via specification-guided input generation (using real blockchain data for valid/invalid requests) and LLM-based false-positive filtering to distinguish bugs from acceptable variations. Evaluation on all 11 major Ethereum clients reports discovery of 72 bugs (90.28% confirmed or fixed by developers), up to 89.67% higher code coverage than prior tools, and 37.38% false-positive reduction, with developer adoption of the test cases.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the work is significant for the Ethereum ecosystem (securing >$381B in assets) by automating detection of API inconsistencies that manual methods miss. The high developer confirmation rate, integration of test cases, and escalation of one bug to the Ethereum Project Management meeting indicate practical impact. The approach's use of live execution against real clients and external validation strengthens falsifiability.

major comments (2)
  1. [Evaluation] Evaluation section: the headline metrics (72 bugs at 90.28% confirmation, 37.38% FP reduction, 89.67% coverage gain) are presented without reported test counts, statistical significance tests, or explicit criteria for selecting the 11 clients, preventing independent verification of the results.
  2. [Methodology (LLM filtering)] False-positive filtering subsection: the specification-aware LLM filter is load-bearing for the 37.38% FP reduction and final bug count, yet no ground-truth validation set, inter-annotator agreement, ablation on LLM decisions, or count of developer-overturned classifications is provided; this is especially critical given Ethereum's ambiguous and rapidly changing specifications.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the phrase 'up to 89.67% higher code coverage' does not name the baseline tools or the precise coverage metric (e.g., branch vs. statement), reducing clarity.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 2 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed feedback. We address each major comment point by point below, indicating where revisions have been made to improve the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Evaluation] Evaluation section: the headline metrics (72 bugs at 90.28% confirmation, 37.38% FP reduction, 89.67% coverage gain) are presented without reported test counts, statistical significance tests, or explicit criteria for selecting the 11 clients, preventing independent verification of the results.

    Authors: We agree that additional details improve reproducibility. The 11 clients were selected because they represent all major Ethereum clients according to official client diversity metrics and market share data from sources such as Etherscan and ethereum.org. In the revised manuscript we have added the exact total number of test cases generated and executed per client. We have also clarified that the evaluation consists of exhaustive testing across the complete client set rather than sampled data, which is why traditional statistical significance tests were not applied; raw coverage and bug counts are reported directly for transparency. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Methodology (LLM filtering)] False-positive filtering subsection: the specification-aware LLM filter is load-bearing for the 37.38% FP reduction and final bug count, yet no ground-truth validation set, inter-annotator agreement, ablation on LLM decisions, or count of developer-overturned classifications is provided; this is especially critical given Ethereum's ambiguous and rapidly changing specifications.

    Authors: We agree that the LLM component requires more explicit documentation. The revised manuscript now includes the exact prompts used for the specification-aware LLM filter and the count of cases in which developers overturned the LLM classification. Primary validation rests on the 90.28% developer confirmation rate, which directly reflects real-world acceptance under ambiguous specifications. A separate held-out ground-truth set independent of developer input was not constructed, as developer feedback constitutes the authoritative validation in this setting. Inter-annotator agreement metrics do not apply to an automated LLM process. We have added further analysis quantifying the LLM filter's contribution to false-positive reduction without performing a full ablation study. revision: partial

standing simulated objections not resolved
  • Independent ground-truth validation set for LLM filtering separate from developer confirmations
  • Full ablation study isolating LLM decision impact

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: empirical results rest on external client execution and developer confirmations

full rationale

The paper describes an empirical differential testing framework (APIDiffer) that generates tests from specifications, applies LLM-based filtering, runs against 11 live Ethereum clients, and reports bugs confirmed by external developers. No equations, fitted parameters, self-citations, or ansatzes are invoked as load-bearing steps in the provided text. The headline metrics derive from direct execution and third-party validation rather than any reduction to the paper's own inputs or definitions by construction. This matches the default case of a self-contained empirical study against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The framework rests on the domain assumption that published Ethereum API specifications are sufficiently complete and accurate to serve as an oracle for test generation and oracle for bug detection.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Published Ethereum JSON-RPC and other client API specifications accurately capture intended behavior across all valid implementations.
    Used to generate both valid and invalid test inputs and to judge observed differences.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5599 in / 1215 out tokens · 33296 ms · 2026-05-15T15:40:55.611516+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

142 extracted references · 142 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2025.Client Diversity | Ethereum

    Ether Alpha. 2025.Client Diversity | Ethereum. Retrieved 2025-07-01 from https://clientdiversity.org

    work page 2025

  2. [2]

    Andrea Arcuri. 2018. EvoMaster: Evolutionary Multi-context Automated System Test Generation. In2018 IEEE 11th International Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation (ICST). 394–397. doi:10.1109/ICST.2018.00046

    work page doi:10.1109/icst.2018.00046 2018

  3. [3]

    Andrea Arcuri, Man Zhang, Susruthan Seran, Juan Pablo Galeotti, Amid Golmohammadi, Onur Duman, Agustina Aldasoro, and Hernan Ghianni. 2024. Tool report: EvoMaster—black and white box search-based fuzzing for REST, GraphQL and RPC APIs.Automated Software Engineering32, 1 (Nov. 2024), 4. doi:10.1007/s10515-024-00478-1

    work page doi:10.1007/s10515-024-00478-1 2024

  4. [4]

    Vaggelis Atlidakis, Patrice Godefroid, and Marina Polishchuk. 2019. Restler: Stateful rest api fuzzing. In2019 IEEE/ACM 41st International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE). IEEE, 748–758

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    2025.Vouch

    Attestant. 2025.Vouch. Retrieved 2025-01-28 from https://github.com/attestantio

    work page 2025

  6. [6]

    Renas Bacho and Julian Loss. 2022. On the Adaptive Security of the Threshold BLS Signature Scheme. InProceedings of the 2022 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security(Los Angeles, CA, USA)(CCS ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 193–207. doi:10.1145/3548606.3560656

    work page doi:10.1145/3548606.3560656 2022

  7. [7]

    2025.Announcing Protocol

    Tim Beiko Barnabé Monnot and Alex Stokes. 2025.Announcing Protocol. Retrieved 2025-10-07 from https://blog. ethereum.org/2025/06/02/announcing-protocol

    work page 2025

  8. [8]

    Lukas Bernhard, Tobias Scharnowski, Moritz Schloegel, Tim Blazytko, and Thorsten Holz. 2022. JIT-Picking: Differential Fuzzing of JavaScript Engines. InProceedings of the 2022 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security(Los Angeles, CA, USA)(CCS ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 351–364. doi:10.1145/3548606.3560624

    work page doi:10.1145/3548606.3560624 2022

  9. [9]

    Chad Brubaker, Suman Jana, Baishakhi Ray, Sarfraz Khurshid, and Vitaly Shmatikov. 2014. Using Frankencerts for Automated Adversarial Testing of Certificate Validation in SSL/TLS Implementations. In2014 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP)(Berkeley, CA, USA). IEEE, 114–129. doi:10.1109/SP.2014.15

    work page doi:10.1109/sp.2014.15 2014

  10. [10]

    Vitalik Buterin et al. 2013. Ethereum white paper.GitHub repository1 (2013), 22–23. Retrieved 2025-07-01 from https://ethereum.org/en/whitepaper

    work page 2013

  11. [11]

    2022.EIP-4844: Shard Blob Transactions

    Vitalik Buterin, Dankrad Feist, Diederik Loerakker, George Kadianakis, Matt Garnett, Mofi Taiwo, and Ansgar Dietrichs. 2022.EIP-4844: Shard Blob Transactions. Retrieved 2025-07-01 from https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-4844

    work page 2022

  12. [12]

    Jialun Cao, Meiziniu Li, Yeting Li, Ming Wen, Shing-Chi Cheung, and Haiming Chen. 2022. SemMT: A Semantic-Based Testing Approach for Machine Translation Systems.ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol.31, 2, Article 34e (April 2022), 36 pages. doi:10.1145/3490488

    work page doi:10.1145/3490488 2022

  13. [13]

    Shangtong Cao, Ningyu He, Xinyu She, Yixuan Zhang, Mu Zhang, and Haoyu Wang. 2024. WASMaker: Differential Testing of WebAssembly Runtimes via Semantic-Aware Binary Generation(ISSTA 2024). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1262–1273. doi:10.1145/3650212.3680358

    work page doi:10.1145/3650212.3680358 2024

  14. [14]

    2025.Lodestar Ethereum Consensus Implementation

    ChainSafe. 2025.Lodestar Ethereum Consensus Implementation. Retrieved 2025-07-01 from https://github.com/ ChainSafe/lodestar

    work page 2025

  15. [15]

    2025.Nodewatch-Eth2 Node Analytics

    Chainsafe. 2025.Nodewatch-Eth2 Node Analytics. Retrieved 2025-07-01 from https://nodewatch.io

    work page 2025

  16. [16]

    Chu Chen, Pinghong Ren, Zhenhua Duan, Cong Tian, Xu Lu, and Bin Yu. 2023. SBDT: Search-Based Differential Testing of Certificate Parsers in SSL/TLS Implementations(ISSTA 2023). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 967–979. doi:10.1145/3597926.3598110

    work page doi:10.1145/3597926.3598110 2023

  17. [17]

    Tsong Yueh Chen, Fei-Ching Kuo, Huai Liu, Pak-Lok Poon, Dave Towey, TH Tse, and Zhi Quan Zhou. 2018. Meta- morphic testing: A review of challenges and opportunities.ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR)51, 1 (2018), 1–27

    work page 2018

  18. [18]

    Yuanliang Chen, Fuchen Ma, Yuanhang Zhou, Yu Jiang, Ting Chen, and Jiaguang Sun. 2023. Tyr: Finding Consensus Failure Bugs in Blockchain System with Behaviour Divergent Model. In2023 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP)(San Francisco, CA, USA). IEEE, 2517–2532. doi:10.1109/SP46215.2023.10179386

    work page doi:10.1109/sp46215.2023.10179386 2023

  19. [19]

    Yuting Chen, Ting Su, and Zhendong Su. 2019. Deep Differential Testing of JVM Implementations. In2019 IEEE/ACM 41st International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE ’2019). 1257–1268. doi:10.1109/ICSE.2019.00127

    work page doi:10.1109/icse.2019.00127 2019

  20. [20]

    Yuting Chen, Ting Su, Chengnian Sun, Zhendong Su, and Jianjun Zhao. 2016. Coverage-directed differential testing of JVM implementations. InProceedings of the 37th ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation(Santa Barbara, CA, USA)(PLDI ’16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 85–99. doi:10.1145/2908080.2908095

    work page doi:10.1145/2908080.2908095 2016

  21. [21]

    Clark, Haitao Dan, and Robert M

    John A. Clark, Haitao Dan, and Robert M. Hierons. 2013. Semantic mutation testing.Science of Computer Programming 78, 4 (April 2013), 345–363. doi:10.1016/j.scico.2011.03.011

    work page doi:10.1016/j.scico.2011.03.011 2013

  22. [22]

    2025.Ethereum price today

    CoinMarketCap. 2025.Ethereum price today. Retrieved 2025-07-01 from https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/ ethereum

    work page 2025

  23. [23]

    2025.Github Teku repository

    Consensus. 2025.Github Teku repository. Retrieved 2025-07-01 from https://github.com/Consensys/teku

    work page 2025

  24. [24]

    2025.MetaMask: The Leading Crypto Wallet Platform, Blockchain Wallet

    ConsenSys. 2025.MetaMask: The Leading Crypto Wallet Platform, Blockchain Wallet. Retrieved 2025-07-01 from https://metamask.io When Specifications Meet Reality: Uncovering API Inconsistencies in Ethereum Infrastructure 111:27

    work page 2025

  25. [25]

    2025.Top Ethereum Games

    DappRadar. 2025.Top Ethereum Games. Retrieved 2025-07-01 from https://dappradar.com/rankings/protocol/ ethereum/category/games

    work page 2025

  26. [26]

    2025.AI-Powered Infrastructure for dApps and Chains

    dRPC. 2025.AI-Powered Infrastructure for dApps and Chains. Retrieved 2025-10-07 from https://drpc.org/

    work page 2025

  27. [27]

    Wenlong Du, Jian Li, Yanhao Wang, Libo Chen, Ruijie Zhao, Junmin Zhu, Zhengguang Han, Yijun Wang, and Zhi Xue

    work page

  28. [28]

    In33rd USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 24)

    Vulnerability-oriented Testing for {RESTful} {APIs}. In33rd USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 24). 739–755

    work page

  29. [29]

    2025.Github Erigon repository

    Erigontech. 2025.Github Erigon repository. Retrieved 2025-07-01 from https://github.com/erigontech/erigon

    work page 2025

  30. [30]

    2025.Github rpc-tests repository

    erigontech. 2025.Github rpc-tests repository. Retrieved 2025-10-09 from https://github.com/erigontech/rpc-tests

    work page 2025

  31. [31]

    2025.erpc-fault-tolerant EVM RPC proxy

    erpc. 2025.erpc-fault-tolerant EVM RPC proxy. Retrieved 2025-01-28 from https://github.com/erpc/erpc

    work page 2025

  32. [32]

    2023.EtherDiffer

    Ethereum. 2023.EtherDiffer. Retrieved 2025-07-01 from https://github.com/JosephK95/EtherDiffer-public

    work page 2023

  33. [33]

    2025.Engine API – Common Definitions

    Ethereum. 2025.Engine API – Common Definitions. Retrieved 2025-07-01 from https://github.com/ethereum/execution- apis/blob/main/src/engine/common.md

    work page 2025

  34. [34]

    2025.Eth Beacon Node API

    Ethereum. 2025.Eth Beacon Node API. Retrieved 2025-07-01 from https://ethereum.github.io/beacon-APIs

    work page 2025

  35. [35]

    2025.Ethereum Beacon APIs

    Ethereum. 2025.Ethereum Beacon APIs. Retrieved 2025-07-01 from https://github.com/ethereum/beacon-APIs

    work page 2025

  36. [36]

    2025.Ethereum Proof-of-Stake Consensus Specifications

    Ethereum. 2025.Ethereum Proof-of-Stake Consensus Specifications. Retrieved 2025-07-01 from https://github.com/ ethereum/consensus-specs

    work page 2025

  37. [37]

    2025.Execution API Specification

    Ethereum. 2025.Execution API Specification. Retrieved 2025-07-01 from https://github.com/ethereum/execution-apis

    work page 2025

  38. [38]

    2025.Execution API Specification

    Ethereum. 2025.Execution API Specification. Retrieved 2025-07-01 from https://ethereum.github.io/execution-apis

    work page 2025

  39. [39]

    2025.Github execution-specs repository

    Ethereum. 2025.Github execution-specs repository. Retrieved 2025-10-07 from https://github.com/ethereum/execution- specs

    work page 2025

  40. [40]

    2025.Github Go Ethereum repository

    Ethereum. 2025.Github Go Ethereum repository. Retrieved 2025-07-01 from https://github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum

    work page 2025

  41. [41]

    2025.hive - Ethereum end-to-end test harness

    Ethereum. 2025.hive - Ethereum end-to-end test harness. Retrieved 2025-07-01 from https://github.com/ethereum/hive

    work page 2025

  42. [42]

    2025.JSON-RPC API

    Ethereum. 2025.JSON-RPC API. Retrieved 2025-07-01 from https://ethereum.github.io/execution-apis/docs/reference/ json-rpc-api

    work page 2025

  43. [43]

    2025.JSON RPC Error codes standardization using open-rpc extension specs

    Ethereum. 2025.JSON RPC Error codes standardization using open-rpc extension specs. Retrieved 2025-10-07 from https://github.com/ethereum/execution-apis/pull/650

    work page 2025

  44. [44]

    2025.publishBlockV2 in Beacon-API

    Ethereum. 2025.publishBlockV2 in Beacon-API. Retrieved 2025-07-01 from https://ethereum.github.io/beacon- APIs/#/Beacon/publishBlockV2

    work page 2025

  45. [45]

    2025.rpc-compat test results of hive

    Ethereum. 2025.rpc-compat test results of hive. Retrieved 2025-07-01 from https://hivetests2.ethdevops.io/#summary- sort=name&suite=rpc-compat

    work page 2025

  46. [46]

    2025.Web3.py: A Python Library for Interacting with Ethereum

    Ethereum. 2025.Web3.py: A Python Library for Interacting with Ethereum. Retrieved 2025-07-01 from https: //github.com/ethereum/web3.py

    work page 2025

  47. [47]

    2025.Block proposal

    Ethereum.org. 2025.Block proposal. Retrieved 2025-07-01 from https://ethereum.org/en/developers/docs/consensus- mechanisms/pos/block-proposal

    work page 2025

  48. [48]

    2025.Decentralized finance (DeFi)

    Ethereum.org. 2025.Decentralized finance (DeFi). Retrieved 2025-07-01 from https://ethereum.org/en/defi

    work page 2025

  49. [49]

    2025.Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM)

    Ethereum.org. 2025.Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM). Retrieved 2025-07-01 from https://ethereum.org/en/developers/ docs/evm

    work page 2025

  50. [50]

    2025.The history of Ethereum

    Ethereum.org. 2025.The history of Ethereum. Retrieved 2025-07-01 from https://ethereum.org/en/history

    work page 2025

  51. [51]

    2025.How to Run an Ethereum Node

    Ethereum.org. 2025.How to Run an Ethereum Node. Retrieved 2025-07-01 from https://ethereum.org/en/run-a-node

    work page 2025

  52. [52]

    2025.The Merge

    Ethereum.org. 2025.The Merge. Retrieved 2025-07-01 from https://ethereum.org/en/roadmap/merge

    work page 2025

  53. [53]

    2025.Nodes and clients

    Ethereum.org. 2025.Nodes and clients. Retrieved 2025-07-01 from https://ethereum.org/en/developers/docs/nodes- and-clients

    work page 2025

  54. [54]

    2025.Non-fungible tokens (NFT)

    Ethereum.org. 2025.Non-fungible tokens (NFT). Retrieved 2025-07-01 from https://ethereum.org/en/nft

    work page 2025

  55. [55]

    2025.Proof-of-stake (PoS)

    Ethereum.org. 2025.Proof-of-stake (PoS). Retrieved 2025-07-01 from https://ethereum.org/en/developers/docs/ consensus-mechanisms/pos

    work page 2025

  56. [56]

    2025.Stablecoins explained: What are they for?Retrieved 2025-07-01 from https://ethereum.org/en/ stablecoins

    Ethereum.org. 2025.Stablecoins explained: What are they for?Retrieved 2025-07-01 from https://ethereum.org/en/ stablecoins

    work page 2025

  57. [57]

    2025.The Ethers Project

    ethers io. 2025.The Ethers Project. Retrieved 2025-07-01 from https://github.com/ethers-io/ethers.js

    work page 2025

  58. [58]

    2025.The Ethereum Blockchain Explorer

    Etherscan. 2025.The Ethereum Blockchain Explorer. Retrieved 2025-07-04 from https://etherscan.io

    work page 2025

  59. [59]

    2025.Dora the Beaconchain Explorer

    ethpandaops. 2025.Dora the Beaconchain Explorer. Retrieved 2025-10-08 from https://github.com/ethpandaops/dora

    work page 2025

  60. [60]

    2025.Github Ethereum Package repository

    ethpandaops. 2025.Github Ethereum Package repository. Retrieved 2025-10-08 from https://github.com/ethpandaops/ ethereum-package

    work page 2025

  61. [61]

    Robert Feldt and Ana Magazinius. 2010. Validity threats in empirical software engineering research-an initial survey.. InSeke. 374–379

    work page 2010

  62. [62]

    Qiong Feng, Xiaotian Ma, Ziyuan Feng, Marat Akhin, Wei Song, and Peng Liang. 2025. Finding Compiler Bugs through Cross-Language Code Generator and Differential Testing.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.06584(2025). 111:28 Jie Ma, Ningyu He et al

    work page arXiv 2025

  63. [63]

    2025.Clarify handling of empty array for validator identities api

    Nico Flaig. 2025.Clarify handling of empty array for validator identities api. Retrieved 2025-10-07 from https: //github.com/ethereum/beacon-APIs/pull/533

    work page 2025

  64. [64]

    2025.RPC Standards # 7 | June 23rd, 2025

    Justin Florentine. 2025.RPC Standards # 7 | June 23rd, 2025. Retrieved 2025-07-01 from https://github.com/ethereum/ pm/issues/1585

    work page 2025

  65. [65]

    Ying Fu, Meng Ren, Fuchen Ma, Heyuan Shi, Xin Yang, Yu Jiang, Huizhong Li, and Xiang Shi. 2019. EVMFuzzer: detect EVM vulnerabilities via fuzz testing. InProceedings of the 2019 27th ACM Joint Meeting on European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering(Tallinn, Estonia)(ESEC/FSE 2019). Association for Compu...

    work page doi:10.1145/3338906.3341175 2019

  66. [66]

    2024.admin Namespace

    go ethereum. 2024.admin Namespace. Retrieved 2025-10-01 from https://geth.ethereum.org/docs/interacting-with- geth/rpc/ns-admin

    work page 2024

  67. [67]

    Amid Golmohammadi, Man Zhang, and Andrea Arcuri. 2023. Testing RESTful APIs: A Survey.ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol.33, 1, Article 27 (Nov. 2023), 41 pages. doi:10.1145/3617175

    work page doi:10.1145/3617175 2023

  68. [68]

    2025.Coverage profiling support for integration tests

    Google. 2025.Coverage profiling support for integration tests. Retrieved 2025-07-01 from https://go.dev/doc/build-cover

    work page 2025

  69. [69]

    Qiuhan Gu. 2023. LLM-Based Code Generation Method for Golang Compiler Testing. InProceedings of the 31st ACM Joint European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering(San Francisco CA USA, 2023-11-30)(ESEC/FSE 2023). Association for Computing Machinery, 2201–2203. doi:10.1145/ 3611643.3617850

    work page arXiv 2023

  70. [70]

    Muhammad Ali Gulzar, Yongkang Zhu, and Xiaofeng Han. 2019. Perception and practices of differential testing. In 2019 IEEE/ACM 41st International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering in Practice (ICSE-SEIP). IEEE, 71–80

    work page 2019

  71. [71]

    2018.hypothesis-jsonschema

    Zac Hatfield-Dodds. 2018.hypothesis-jsonschema. Retrieved 2025-07-01 from https://github.com/python-jsonschema/ hypothesis-jsonschema

    work page 2018

  72. [72]

    Zheyuan He, Zihao Li, Ao Qiao, Xiapu Luo, Xiaosong Zhang, Ting Chen, Shuwei Song, Dijun Liu, and Weina Niu

    work page

  73. [73]

    Architectural Mimicry: Innovative Instructions to Efficiently Address Control-Flow Leakage in Data-Oblivious Programs,

    Nurgle: Exacerbating Resource Consumption in Blockchain State Storage via MPT Manipulation. In2024 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP). 2180–2197. doi:10.1109/SP54263.2024.00125

    work page doi:10.1109/sp54263.2024.00125 2024

  74. [74]

    2024.Etherscan inconsistent

    Martin HS. 2024.Etherscan inconsistent. Retrieved 2025-07-01 from https://github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum/ issues/30593

    work page 2024

  75. [75]

    Mingzhe Hu and Yu Zhang. 2020. The Python/C API: evolution, usage statistics, and bug patterns. In2020 IEEE 27th International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution and Reengineering (SANER). IEEE, 532–536

    work page 2020

  76. [76]

    Lei Huang, Weijiang Yu, Weitao Ma, Weihong Zhong, Zhangyin Feng, Haotian Wang, Qianglong Chen, Weihua Peng, Xiaocheng Feng, Bing Qin, and Ting Liu. 2025. A Survey on Hallucination in Large Language Models: Principles, Taxonomy, Challenges, and Open Questions.ACM Trans. Inf. Syst.43, 2, Article 42 (Jan. 2025), 55 pages. doi:10.1145/3703155

    work page doi:10.1145/3703155 2025

  77. [77]

    2025.Github Besu Ethereum Client repository

    Hyperledger. 2025.Github Besu Ethereum Client repository. Retrieved 2025-07-01 from https://github.com/hyperledger/ besu/

    work page 2025

  78. [78]

    Yuchen Ji, Ting Dai, Zhichao Zhou, Yutian Tang, and Jingzhu He. 2025. Artemis: Toward Accurate Detection of Server-Side Request Forgeries through LLM-Assisted Inter-procedural Path-Sensitive Taint Analysis.Proc. ACM Program. Lang.9, OOPSLA1, Article 128 (April 2025), 29 pages. doi:10.1145/3720488

    work page doi:10.1145/3720488 2025

  79. [79]

    Yuancheng Jiang, Jianing Wang, Qiange Liu, Yeqi Fu, Jian Mao, Roland HC Yap, and Zhenkai Liang. 2025. ZendDiff: Differential Testing of PHP Interpreter. InProceedings of the 40th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering(Seoul, Republic of Korea)(ASE ’25)

    work page 2025

  80. [80]

    Zheyue Jiang, Yuan Zhang, Jun Xu, Qi Wen, Zhenghe Wang, Xiaohan Zhang, Xinyu Xing, Min Yang, and Zhemin Yang

    work page

Showing first 80 references.