Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 78 references

PrettiSmart: Visual Interpretation of Smart Contracts via Simulation

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that simulating many multi-user executions and visualizing them lets investors understand what a smart contract does and spot risky patterns without reading Solidity source code.

desk verdict A genuinely new visualization system with a solid design process, but the abstract's 'reliable' claim outruns the evidence: fuzzed simulations stand in for real investor behavior, and the paper itself concedes that premise is untested. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.18484 v1 pith:DHJPL4QU submitted 2024-12-24 cs.HC

Xiaolin Wen , Tai D. Nguyen , Lun Zhang , Jun Sun , Yong Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HC
keywords smartcontractvisualizationexecutionsimulationcoverage-guidedfuzzingcryptocurrencyflowPonzischemedetectionblockchaininvestortoolsstatevariablechangesusabilitystudy
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

PrettiSmart is built on the claim that a smart contract's behavior can be made legible to people who cannot read code by generating many possible multi-user executions and showing the results as pictures. The authors argue that coverage-guided fuzzing can produce function-call sequences that exercise most branches of a contract, and that replaying those sequences on an Ethereum virtual machine yields the money flows, balance changes, and state-variable updates that matter to investors. The paper's central promise is that with the right visual encoding—a barcode-style overview plus a detailed sequence view—a non-programmer can infer what a contract does, including whether it is likely a fair game or a fraud, without the source code. If true, this would give ordinary cryptocurrency investors a practical way to pre-screen irreversible investments.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is a two-stage simulation-and-visualization pipeline. The simulator parses the Solidity abstract syntax tree to identify functions and state variables and to insert logging events, then runs coverage-guided fuzzing over the contract to produce many simulations, each a sequence of function calls spread across simulated user addresses; each sequence is replayed on a standalone Ethereum virtual machine to extract internal transactions, cryptocurrency flows, and variable changes for every call. The visualization layer then maps each simulation to a barcode-style balance grid—color-encoded net balance per address per call—and an augmented sequential detail view that layers function call distribution, cryptocurrency flow curves whose width encodes value, net balance area charts, and state-variable change icons aligned on a shared time axis.

What would settle it

Compare PrettiSmart's simulated function-call sequences for a specific contract, such as the Suicide Watch Ponzi contract, with that contract's actual on-chain transaction history: if the simulation does not reproduce the chain-like payout structure that makes the fraud visible, or if a legitimate fundraising contract produces the same alarming visual patterns, then the claimed reliability of the interpretation is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim, stated in its own terms, is that PrettiSmart is a visualization approach via execution simulation that achieves an intuitive and reliable visual interpretation of smart contracts. The authors demonstrate the claim with two case studies: an investor without programming background correctly reads a gambling contract as a fair lottery from its simulated payout rounds, and an investor with programming background correctly identifies the Suicide Watch contract as a typical Ponzi scheme from its chain-like internal transactions, owner-withdrawal function, and uniformly negative user balances. The underlying assertion is that these visual patterns—repetitive invest-and-payout cycles, a function callable only by the owner that drains the balance, state variables storing the last caller—constitute interpretable evidence of contract functionality and risk.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that fuzzing-generated function-call sequences resemble how real investors actually use a contract closely enough that visual patterns can be read as the contract's real behavior; the paper concedes in its discussion that the simulated call distribution may differ from the real world and that conclusions drawn by users cannot be guaranteed accurate.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • An investor without a programming background can correctly classify a gambling contract as a fair lottery by reading the simulated payout rounds.
  • An investor with a programming background can identify a Ponzi scheme from chain-like internal transactions, owner-withdrawal behavior, and negative user balances.
  • The visualization supports contracts with little or no transaction history, because the simulation generates behaviors from the code rather than from on-chain activity.
  • The design exposes economic models—who pays, who receives, and who can call which function—that are hard to infer from source code alone.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial inference: the paper does not compare its simulated function-call sequences to actual transaction histories, so a direct distributional comparison would be the clearest test of whether the pictured patterns reflect real investor behavior rather than fuzzing artifacts.
  • Editorial inference: the visual grammar could serve as a contract-language-independent medium; if it works for obfuscated or misleadingly named functions, it would be especially useful for scams that hide their intent behind innocuous names.
  • Editorial inference: the same simulation traces could be compressed into quantitative risk indicators—for example, the fraction of simulations ending with owner withdrawal exceeding investor returns—turning visual inspection into a score that does not depend on the viewer's visual literacy.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents PrettiSmart, a visualization system that takes Solidity smart-contract source code as input, uses Echidna-based fuzzing and the HEVM EVM implementation to generate simulated multi-user function-call sequences and execution traces, and visualizes the results in two linked modules: a barcode-style Simulation Overview Module and a detailed Simulation Detail Module showing function summaries, function-call sequences, cryptocurrency flows, net balance changes, and state-variable changes. The authors report a preliminary design-requirements study with six domain experts, two case studies on known contracts, and semi-structured interviews with twelve investors, concluding that PrettiSmart provides an intuitive and reliable visual interpretation of smart contracts.

Significance. If the central claim is established, PrettiSmart addresses a genuine need: non-programmer investors cannot read Solidity source, and transaction-based visualization tools are unhelpful for contracts with little or no on-chain activity. The paper contributes a concrete simulator-plus-visualization pipeline, a set of design requirements elicited from experts, and a thoughtfully designed visual encoding that links function calls to cryptocurrency flows and state changes. The two case studies are plausible demonstrations, and the interview data provide qualitative evidence that participants could extract meaningful patterns from the system. The authors are also candid about limitations in Sections 8.3 and 9. However, the evidence does not currently support the word 'reliable' in the abstract and conclusion: the load-bearing premise that coverage-guided fuzzing produces realistic investor behavior is untested, and the evaluation has no baseline or control condition. The contribution is therefore best framed as an exploratory visualization approach with promising usability evidence, pending validation of the simulation premise.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract, §5, §9, §10] The abstract and conclusion claim that PrettiSmart provides 'reliable visual interpretation,' but the evidence does not establish reliability. The simulator in §5 uses Echidna, a coverage-guided fuzzer, to generate function-call sequences; §9 explicitly concedes that this 'may differ from the function call distribution in the real world' and gives the example that owners of fraudulent contracts are unlikely to invest in their own contracts, even though the simulator can generate that behavior. Since the visualization is entirely downstream of these generated sequences, the accuracy of user-drawn conclusions is not guaranteed. The authors should either remove or qualify the term 'reliable' and the phrase 'comprehensively capture most of the possible real-world smart contract behaviors,' or add a validation study that compares simulated function-call sequences against real on-chain transaction histories for comparable contracts, for example by measuring the distribution of called functions, caller profiles, and flow magnitudes.
  2. [§7, §8] The user evaluation does not include a baseline or control condition, so the effectiveness claims are not yet comparative. In the two case studies of §7, the participants are two of the twelve interviewees and the ground-truth contracts are known to the authors; there is no indication that the participants were blinded or that their interpretations were independently scored. In §8, participants were only asked to use PrettiSmart and rate it, not to perform the same interpretation task with source code, a transaction explorer, or an existing tool. This supports a qualitative usability conclusion but does not establish that PrettiSmart is more effective than alternatives. Adding a baseline condition and a pre-registered classification task with contract-level ground truth would materially strengthen the paper's main claim.
  3. [§8.3] The paper itself states that 'a legitimate fundraising contract and a fraudulent one may exhibit similar behaviors, such as granting the owner control over user funds,' and that PrettiSmart 'cannot guarantee the accuracy of user-drawn conclusions.' This is directly relevant to the stated application of risk interpretation, yet the evaluation does not measure false positives or false negatives in participants' risk judgments. The manuscript should report which 12 contracts were selected, how the contract was assigned to each participant, and whether participant classifications were correct, especially for the risk-related conclusions emphasized in the two case studies. Otherwise the claims should be limited to 'comprehension of simulated behaviors' rather than 'identification of fraudulent contracts.'
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 7 caption and §8.2] The Figure 7 caption says 'Q1-Q11 are closed-ended,' while the procedure text states that Q1-Q10 are close-ended and Q11-Q12 are open-ended. This contradiction should be corrected.
  2. [§7.2 and Fig. 6] The text says 'the State Variable Changes of F0 (Fig. 6D1) and F1 (Fig. 6D1)'; the second reference should presumably be a different subfigure such as Fig. 6D2, and the later references to D3 and D4 should be checked against the figure layout.
  3. [§5, Step 2] The description of the fuzzing configuration is too vague for reproducibility: the paper does not state the default time budget, the number of simulated users, the balance limits, or the function-call mutation strategy used for the reported case studies. Concrete default values or a configuration listing should be provided in an appendix or supplementary material.
  4. [§1 and §10] The challenge C1 is phrased as obtaining 'all potential behaviors' of a smart contract, but the simulator can only cover branches reachable by Echidna within a time budget. The wording should be aligned with the actual coverage-based claim to avoid an impression of exhaustiveness.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the system pipeline is source code to Echidna/HEVM traces to visual encodings, with no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction and no load-bearing self-citation.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. The claimed contribution is a visualization pipeline: smart contract source code is parsed, Echidna fuzzing generates function-call sequences, HEVM re-executes those sequences to capture state changes and internal transactions, and PrettiSmart encodes those raw traces into visual summaries and details. No result is defined in terms of the target conclusion, and no parameter is fitted to user-study outcomes and then presented as a prediction. The two case studies involve users interpreting visual patterns, with ground truth revealed only after the fact, so the interpretations are not forced by construction. The authors' own self-citations ([65], [67]) appear only in related work on Ponzi visualization and are not load-bearing premises. The limitations explicitly stated in Section 9 — that the simulation 'may differ from the function call distribution in the real world' — and in Section 8.3 — that PrettiSmart 'cannot guarantee the accuracy of user-drawn conclusions' — are external-validity and empirical-support concerns about whether fuzz-generated sequences represent real investor behavior, not circularity. The central reliability claim is therefore under-supported, but the derivation itself is self-contained and independent of its own outputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the simulator producing comprehensive and representative behavior from source code alone. The paper provides no coverage measurements, no validation of HEVM fidelity, and explicitly concedes that simulated call distributions may not match real investor behavior. These are assumptions rather than demonstrated properties.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Echidna fuzzing with branch-coverage guidance generates function-call sequences covering most unique source code branches.
    Invoked in Section 5 Steps 2 and 3 and Section 2.2 to justify that simulated behaviors are comprehensive, but no coverage data is reported for the evaluated contracts.
  • domain assumption HEVM execution traces faithfully reproduce Ethereum mainnet semantics for operations such as CALL, CALLCODE, and LOG.
    Invoked in Section 5 Step 4 to extract internal transactions and state-variable changes; no validation against mainnet behavior is provided.
  • domain assumption Events inserted before and after each function faithfully capture the relevant state variable values at each step.
    Invoked in Section 5 Step 1 as the mechanism for collecting state changes; the paper does not discuss cases where events cannot be inserted or where reentrancy affects them.
  • ad hoc to paper Simulated multi-user function-call patterns approximate real-world investor behavior closely enough for risk interpretation.
    This is the key modeling assumption behind the tool's value. The paper concedes in Section 9 that the simulation 'may differ from the function call distribution in the real world' and provides no user-behavior model.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of PrettiSmart: Visual Interpretation of Smart Contracts via Simulation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DHJPL4QU

@misc{pith2026241218484,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: PrettiSmart: Visual Interpretation of Smart Contracts via Simulation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DHJPL4QU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.18484}
}
read the original abstract

Smart contracts are the fundamental components of blockchain technology. They are programs to determine cryptocurrency transactions, and are irreversible once deployed, making it crucial for cryptocurrency investors to understand the cryptocurrency transaction behaviors of smart contracts comprehensively. However, it is a challenging (if not impossible) task for investors, as they do not necessarily have a programming background to check the complex source code. Even for investors with certain programming skills, inferring all the potential behaviors from the code alone is still difficult, since the actual behaviors can be different when different investors are involved. To address this challenge, we propose PrettiSmart, a novel visualization approach via execution simulation to achieve intuitive and reliable visual interpretation of smart contracts. Specifically, we develop a simulator to comprehensively capture most of the possible real-world smart contract behaviors, involving multiple investors and various smart contract functions. Then, we present PrettiSmart to intuitively visualize the simulation results of a smart contract, which consists of two modules: The Simulation Overview Module is a barcode-based design, providing a visual summary for each simulation, and the Simulation Detail Module is an augmented sequential design to display the cryptocurrency transaction details in each simulation, such as function call sequences, cryptocurrency flows, and state variable changes. It can allow investors to intuitively inspect and understand how a smart contract will work. We evaluate PrettiSmart through two case studies and in-depth user interviews with 12 investors. The results demonstrate the effectiveness and usability of PrettiSmart in facilitating an easy interpretation of smart contracts.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.18484 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The interface of PrettiSmart consists of a Simulation Overview Module (A) to provide a visual summary for each simulation (A1) generated by our simulator and a Simulation Detail Module (B) to show the details of each simulation, including the Function Summary (B1), the Function Call Details involving cryptocurrency flows and net balance changes (B2), and State Variable Changes (B3). In this figure, PrettiSmart provi… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Critical concept illustrations: (A) presents an example of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The simulator framework (A) consists of four steps: source [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The visual designs of PrettiSmart. The Simulation Overview Module (A) shows a visual summary of each simulation. The Simulation Detail Module includes: Function Summary (B) to overview each function, Function Call Details (C) to show the function call distribution (C1)…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: With PrettiSmart, an investor has identified a smart contract as a fair gambling game. (A) shows the overview of simulations from our simulator, where the patterns in (A1) and (A2) help the investor understand the gains and losses of each address. (B) helps analyze the…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: With PrettiSmart, an investor identified a fraudulent smart contract. (A) shows that all simulated addresses lost their cryptocurrencies and the contract had an increasing balance. By observing the Simulation Detail Module (B), the investor found an abnormal chain-like…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The user interview questionnaire results. Q1-Q11 are closed-ended rated on a 7-point Likert scale. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

78 extracted references · 76 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    https://etherscan.io/ address/0x4f9048d95616DBF7acC16FC4179F5aC6eE37bce6

    Information for Lottery from Etherscan. https://etherscan.io/ address/0x4f9048d95616DBF7acC16FC4179F5aC6eE37bce6. [Ac- cessed 30-03-2024]. 6

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    https://etherscan

    Information for Suicide Watch from Etherscan. https://etherscan. io/address/0xA9aB8eFD9b3eA455d0B3E80773c0Dd78bc258160. [Accessed 30-03-2024]. 7

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    https://remix-project.org/?lang=en

    Remix project. https://remix-project.org/?lang=en. [Accessed 21-11-2024]. 2

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    https: //www.theblock.co/, 2024

    Total Value Locked in Decentralized Finance from The Block. https: //www.theblock.co/, 2024. [Accessed 29-03-2024]. 1

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    https://etherscan.io/ contractsVerified, 2024

    Verified Smart Contracts from Etherscan. https://etherscan.io/ contractsVerified, 2024. [Accessed 29-03-2024]. 1

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Abdellatif and K.-L

    T. Abdellatif and K.-L. Brousmiche. Formal verification of smart contracts based on users and blockchain behaviors models. In Proceedings of the 9th IFIP International Conference on New Technologies, Mobility and Security, pp. 1–5. IEEE, 2018. 3

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    S. M. Beillahi, G. Ciocarlie, M. Emmi, and C. Enea. Behavioral simulation for smart contracts. In Proceedings of the 41st ACM Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, pp. 470–486, 2020. 8, 9

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    Bhargavan, A

    K. Bhargavan, A. Delignat-Lavaud, C. Fournet, A. Gollamudi, G. Gonthier, N. Kobeissi, N. Kulatova, A. Rastogi, T. Sibut-Pinote, N. Swamy, et al. Formal verification of smart contracts: Short paper. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Workshop on Programming Languages and Analysis for Security, pp. 91–96, 2016. 3

    work page 2016

Show all 78 references
  1. [9]

    Bragagnolo, H

    S. Bragagnolo, H. S. Rocha, M. Denker, and S. Ducasse. Smartinspect: Smart Contract Inspection Technical Report. PhD thesis, Inria Lille, 2017. 3

    2017

  2. [10]

    Brent, N

    L. Brent, N. Grech, S. Lagouvardos, B. Scholz, and Y . Smaragdakis. Ethainter: A smart contract security analyzer for composite vulnerabilities. In Proceedings of the 41st ACM Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, pp. 454–469, 2020. 3

    2020

  3. [11]

    Y . Cao, M. Xia, K. Shigyo, F. Cheng, Q. Yu, X. Yang, Y . Wang, W. Zeng, and H. Qu. Nfteller: Dual-centric visual analytics for assessing market performance of nft collectibles. In Proceedings of the 16th International Symposium on Visual Information Communication and Interact...

    2023

  4. [12]

    J. Chen, X. Xia, D. Lo, J. Grundy, X. Luo, and T. Chen. Defining smart contract defects on ethereum. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 48(1):327–345, 2020. 2

    2020

  5. [13]

    W. Chen, X. Li, Y . Sui, N. He, H. Wang, L. Wu, and X. Luo. Sadponzi: Detecting and characterizing ponzi schemes in ethereum smart contracts. Proceedings of the ACM on Measurement and Analysis of Computing Systems, 5(2):1–30, 2021. 3, 7

    2021

  6. [14]

    Chotisarn, L

    N. Chotisarn, L. Merino, X. Zheng, S. Lonapalawong, T. Zhang, M. Xu, and W. Chen. A systematic literature review of modern software visualiza- tion. Journal of Visualization, 23:539–558, 2020. 3

    2020

  7. [15]

    C. C. Daniel Schiavini. Vyper: Pythonic smart contract language for the evm. https://vyperlang.org/, 2024. [Accessed 30-03-2024]. 2

    2024

  8. [16]

    De Moura and N

    L. De Moura and N. Bjørner. Z3: An efficient smt solver. In Proceedings of International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems, pp. 337–340. Springer, 2008. 3

    2008

  9. [17]

    Devkota, M

    S. Devkota, M. Legendre, A. Kunen, P. Aschwanden, and K. E. Isaacs. Cfgconf: Supporting high level requirements for visualizing control flow graphs. arXiv e-prints, p. arXiv: 2108.03047, 2021. 3

    2021 arXiv

  10. [18]

    S. Diehl. Software visualization: visualizing the structure, behaviour, and evolution of software. Springer Science & Business Media, 2007. 3

    2007

  11. [19]

    Durieux, J

    T. Durieux, J. F. Ferreira, R. Abreu, and P. Cruz. Empirical review of auto- mated analysis tools on 47,587 ethereum smart contracts. In Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE 42nd International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 530–541, 2020. 8

    2020

  12. [20]

    Feist and G

    J. Feist and G. Grieco. Balancer core security assessment. https://github.com/trailofbits/publications/blob/ master/reviews/BalancerCore.pdf, 2020. [Accessed 30-03- 2024]. 4

    2020

  13. [21]

    Feist, G

    J. Feist, G. Grieco, and A. Groce. Slither: A static analysis framework for smart contracts. In Proceedings of 2019 IEEE/ACM 2nd International Workshop on Emerging Trends in Software Engineering for Blockchain, pp. 8–15. IEEE, 2019. 3

    2019

  14. [22]

    Foundation

    E. Foundation. Solidity, the smart contract programming language. https://soliditylang.org/, 2024. [Accessed 30-03-2024]. 2, 4

    2024

  15. [23]

    Garfatta, K

    I. Garfatta, K. Klai, W. Gaaloul, and M. Graiet. A survey on formal verifi- cation for solidity smart contracts. InProceedings of the 2021 Australasian Computer Science Week Multiconference, pp. 1–10, 2021. 3

    2021

  16. [24]

    Ghaleb, J

    A. Ghaleb, J. Rubin, and K. Pattabiraman. etainter: Detecting gas-related vulnerabilities in smart contracts. In Proceedings of the 31st ACM Inter- national Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis, pp. 728–739, 2022. 3

    2022

  17. [25]

    Grieco, W

    G. Grieco, W. Song, A. Cygan, J. Feist, and A. Groce. Echidna: Effective, usable, and fast fuzzing for smart contracts. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis, pp. 557– 560, 2020. 3, 4

    2020

  18. [26]

    H. Guo, S. Di, R. Gupta, T. Peterka, and F. Cappello. La valse: Scalable log visualization for fault characterization in supercomputers. In Proceedings of EuroVis, pp. 91–100, 2018. 3

    2018

  19. [27]

    R. T. Gustavo Grieco, Michael Colburn and R. Gopalakrishna. 0x protocol security assessment. https://github.com/trailofbits/ publications/blob/master/reviews/0x-protocol.pdf, 2019. [Accessed 30-03-2024]. 4

    2019

  20. [28]

    Härer and H.-G

    F. Härer and H.-G. Fill. A comparison of approaches for visualizing blockchains and smart contracts. In Proceedings of 22nd International Legal Informatics Symposium, pp. 527–537. Editions Weblaw, 2019. 3

    2019

  21. [29]

    Hayatpur, D

    D. Hayatpur, D. Wigdor, and H. Xia. Crosscode: Multi-level visualization of program execution. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1–13, 2023. 3

    2023

  22. [30]

    Huang, Y

    Y . Huang, Y . Bian, R. Li, J. L. Zhao, and P. Shi. Smart contract security: A software lifecycle perspective. IEEE Access, 7:150184–150202, 2019. 1

    2019

  23. [31]

    K. E. Isaacs and T. Gamblin. Preserving command line workflow for a package management system using ascii dag visualization. IEEE Transac- tions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 25(9):2804–2820, 2018. 3

    2018

  24. [32]

    Jeyakumar, Z

    S. Jeyakumar, Z. Hóu, E. Yugarajah, A. Charles, M. Palaniswami, and V . Muthukkumarasamy. Visualizing blockchain transaction behavioural pattern: A graph-based approach. Authorea Preprints, 2023. 3

    2023

  25. [33]

    Jiang, Y

    B. Jiang, Y . Liu, and W. K. Chan. Contractfuzzer: Fuzzing smart contracts for vulnerability detection. In Proceedings of the 33rd ACM/IEEE Inter- national Conference on Automated Software Engineering, pp. 259–269,

  26. [34]

    S. N. Khan, F. Loukil, C. Ghedira-Guegan, E. Benkhelifa, and A. Bani- Hani. Blockchain smart contracts: Applications, challenges, and future trends. Peer-to-peer Networking and Applications, 14:2901–2925, 2021. 1

    2021

  27. [35]

    Y . Kim, J. Kim, H. Jeon, Y .-H. Kim, H. Song, B. Kim, and J. Seo. Githru: visual analytics for understanding software development history through git metadata analysis. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 27(2):656–666, 2020. 3

    2020

  28. [36]

    Krupp and C

    J. Krupp and C. Rossow. Teether: Gnawing at ethereum to automati- cally exploit smart contracts. In Proceedings of 27th USENIX Security Symposium, pp. 1317–1333, 2018. 3

    2018

  29. [37]

    S. S. Kushwaha, S. Joshi, D. Singh, M. Kaur, and H.-N. Lee. Ethereum smart contract analysis tools: A systematic review.IEEE Access, 10:57037– 57062, 2022. 1, 3

    2022

  30. [38]

    J. R. Lewis. Psychometric evaluation of the post-study system usability questionnaire: The pssuq. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society Annual Meeting, vol. 36, pp. 1259–1260. Sage Publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA, 1992. 8

    1992

  31. [39]

    H. Li, M. Xu, Y . Wang, H. Wei, and H. Qu. A visual analytics approach to facilitate the proctoring of online exams. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1–17, 2021. 8

    2021

  32. [40]

    Liang, J

    R. Liang, J. Chen, K. He, Y . Wu, G. Deng, R. Du, and C. Wu. Ponziguard: Detecting ponzi schemes on ethereum with contract runtime behavior graph. In Proceedings of 2024 IEEE/ACM 46th International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 755–766. IEEE, 2024. 3

    2024

  33. [41]

    C. Liu, H. Liu, Z. Cao, Z. Chen, B. Chen, and B. Roscoe. Reguard: finding reentrancy bugs in smart contracts. In Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 65–68, 2018. 3

    2018

  34. [42]

    Liu and Z

    J. Liu and Z. Liu. A survey on security verification of blockchain smart contracts. IEEE Access, 7:77894–77904, 2019. 3

    2019

  35. [43]

    Z. Liu, P. Qian, X. Wang, Y . Zhuang, L. Qiu, and X. Wang. Combining graph neural networks with expert knowledge for smart contract vulnera- bility detection. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering,

  36. [44]

    Z. Liu, P. Qian, J. Yang, L. Liu, X. Xu, Q. He, and X. Zhang. Rethinking smart contract fuzzing: Fuzzing with invocation ordering and important branch revisiting. IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Secu- rity, 18:1237–1251, 2023. 3

    2023

  37. [45]

    Luu, D.-H

    L. Luu, D.-H. Chu, H. Olickel, P. Saxena, and A. Hobor. Making smart contracts smarter. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, pp. 254–269, 2016. 3

    2016

  38. [46]

    M. M. Mirza, A. Ozer, and U. Karabiyik. Mobile cyber forensic investiga- tions of web3 wallets on android and ios. Applied Sciences, 12(21):11180,

  39. [47]

    Murray and D

    Y . Murray and D. A. Anisi. Survey of formal verification methods for smart contracts on blockchain. In Proceedings of 2019 10th International Conference on New Technologies, Mobility and Security, pp. 1–6. IEEE,

    2019

  40. [48]

    T. D. Nguyen, L. H. Pham, J. Sun, Y . Lin, and Q. T. Minh. Sfuzz: An efficient adaptive fuzzer for solidity smart contracts. In Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE 42nd International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 778–788, 2020. 3, 4, 9

    2020

  41. [49]

    Norvill, B

    R. Norvill, B. B. F. Pontiveros, R. State, and A. Cullen. Visual emula- tion for ethereum’s virtual machine. In Proceedings of 2018 IEEE/IFIP Network Operations and Management Symposium, pp. 1–4. IEEE, 2018. 3

    2018

  42. [50]

    J. S. Park, J. O’Brien, C. J. Cai, M. R. Morris, P. Liang, and M. S. Bernstein. Generative agents: Interactive simulacra of human behavior. In Proceed- ings of the 36th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, pp. 1–22, 2023. 9

    2023

  43. [51]

    G. A. Pierro. Smart-graph: Graphical representations for smart contract on the ethereum blockchain. In Proceedings of 2021 IEEE International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution and Reengineering, pp. 708–

    2021

  44. [52]

    P. Qian, H. Wu, Z. Du, T. Vural, D. Rong, Z. Cao, L. Zhang, Y . Wang, J. Chen, and Q. He. Mufuzz: Sequence-aware mutation and seed mask guidance for blockchain smart contract fuzzing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.04512, 2023. 3

    2023 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Sedlmair, M

    M. Sedlmair, M. Meyer, and T. Munzner. Design study methodology: Reflections from the trenches and the stacks. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 18(12):2431–2440, 2012. doi: 10. 1109/TVCG.2012.213 3

    2012

  46. [54]

    Skotnica and R

    M. Skotnica and R. Pergl. Das contract: A visual domain specific language for modeling blockchain smart contracts. In Proceedings of Enterprise Engineering Working Conference, pp. 149–166. Springer, 2019. 3

    2019

  47. [55]

    M. Soud, G. Hjálmt`ysson, and M. Hamdaqa. Dissecting smart contract languages: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.02799, 2023. 2

    2023 arXiv

  48. [56]

    E. J. Soure, S. Lyu, X. Wen, and Z. Zhou. Kirin: An interactive visu- alization for decentralized finance applications in ethereum blockchain. https://ehsanjso.com/assets/Kirin.pdf, 2021. [Accessed 30-03- 2024]. 3

    2021

  49. [57]

    Sundara, I

    T. Sundara, I. Gaputra, and S. Aulia. Study on blockchain visualization. International Journal on Informatics Visualization, 1(3):76–82, 2017. 3

    2017

  50. [58]

    W. J.-W. Tann, X. J. Han, S. S. Gupta, and Y .-S. Ong. Towards safer smart contracts: A sequence learning approach to detecting security threats. arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.06632, 2018. 3

    2018 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Tovanich, N

    N. Tovanich, N. Heulot, J.-D. Fekete, and P. Isenberg. A systematic review of online bitcoin visualizations. In Posters of the European Conference on Visualization, 2019. 3

    2019

  52. [60]

    Tovanich, N

    N. Tovanich, N. Heulot, J.-D. Fekete, and P. Isenberg. Visualization of blockchain data: a systematic review. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 27(7):3135–3152, 2019. 3

    2019

  53. [61]

    Victor and B

    F. Victor and B. K. Lüders. Measuring ethereum-based erc20 token net- works. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Financial Cryptography and Data Security, pp. 113–129. Springer, 2019. 9

    2019

  54. [62]

    Z. Wan, X. Xia, D. Lo, J. Chen, X. Luo, and X. Yang. Smart contract security: A practitioners’ perspective. In Proceedings of 2021 IEEE/ACM 43rd International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 1410–1422. IEEE, 2021. 2

    2021

  55. [63]

    H. Wang, Y . Liu, Y . Li, S.-W. Lin, C. Artho, L. Ma, and Y . Liu. Oracle- supported dynamic exploit generation for smart contracts. IEEE Trans- actions on Dependable and Secure Computing, 19(3):1795–1809, 2020. 3

    2020

  56. [64]

    W. Wang, J. Song, G. Xu, Y . Li, H. Wang, and C. Su. Contractward: Automated vulnerability detection models for ethereum smart contracts. IEEE Transactions on Network Science and Engineering, 8(2):1133–1144,

  57. [65]

    X. Wen, T. D. Nguyen, S. Ruan, Q. Shen, J. Sun, F. Zhu, and Y . Wang. Ponzilens+: Visualizing bytecode actions for smart ponzi scheme iden- tification. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics,

  58. [66]

    X. Wen, Y . Wang, X. Yue, F. Zhu, and M. Zhu. Nftdisk: Visual detection of wash trading in nft markets. InProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1–15, 2023. 3

    2023

  59. [67]

    X. Wen, K. S. Yeo, Y . Wang, L. Cheng, F. Zhu, and M. Zhu. Code will tell: Visual identification of ponzi schemes on ethereum. In Extended Abstracts of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1–6, 2023. 3

    2023

  60. [68]

    Wood et al

    G. Wood et al. Ethereum: A secure decentralised generalised transaction ledger. Ethereum Project Yellow Paper, 151(2014):1–32, 2014. 2

    2014

  61. [69]

    A. Wu, D. Deng, F. Cheng, Y . Wu, S. Liu, and H. Qu. In defence of visual analytics systems: Replies to critics. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 29(1):1026–1036, 2022. 8

    2022

  62. [70]

    Wüstholz and M

    V . Wüstholz and M. Christakis. Harvey: A greybox fuzzer for smart contracts. In Proceedings of the 28th ACM Joint Meeting on European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering, pp. 1398–1409, 2020. 3

    2020

  63. [71]

    K. Xu, Y . Wang, L. Yang, Y . Wang, B. Qiao, S. Qin, Y . Xu, H. Zhang, and H. Qu. Clouddet: Interactive visual analysis of anomalous performances in cloud computing systems. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 26(1):1107–1117, 2019. 3

    2019

  64. [72]

    F. Yan, X. Wang, K. Mao, W. Zhang, and W. Chen. Nftvis: Visual analysis of nft performance. InProceedings of 2023 IEEE 16th Pacific Visualization Symposium, pp. 82–91. IEEE, 2023. 3

    2023

  65. [73]

    S. K. Yap, Z. Dong, M. Toohey, Y . C. Lee, and A. Y . Zomaya. Smart contract data monitoring and visualization. In Proceedings of 2023 IEEE International Conference on Blockchain and Cryptocurrency , pp. 1–8. IEEE, 2023. 3

    2023

  66. [74]

    Y . Yoon, B. A. Myers, and S. Koo. Visualization of fine-grained code change history. In 2013 IEEE symposium on visual languages and human centric computing, pp. 119–126. IEEE, 2013. 3

    2013

  67. [75]

    Zheng, L

    G. Zheng, L. Gao, L. Huang, J. Guan, G. Zheng, L. Gao, L. Huang, and J. Guan. Application binary interface (abi). Ethereum Smart Contract Development in Solidity, pp. 139–158, 2021. 2

    2021

  68. [76]

    Zheng, W

    Z. Zheng, W. Chen, Z. Zhong, Z. Chen, and Y . Lu. Securing the ethereum from smart ponzi schemes: Identification using static features. ACM Trans- actions on Software Engineering and Methodology, 32(5):1–28, 2023. 2

    2023

  69. [77]

    Zheng, S

    Z. Zheng, S. Xie, H.-N. Dai, W. Chen, X. Chen, J. Weng, and M. Imran. An overview on smart contracts: Challenges, advances and platforms. Future Generation Computer Systems, 105:475–491, 2020. 1

    2020

  70. [78]

    F. Zhou, Y . Fan, S. Lv, L. Jiang, Z. Chen, J. Yuan, F. Han, H. Jiang, G. Bai, and Y . Zhao. Fctree: Visualization of function calls in execution. Information and Software Technology, p. 107545, 2024. 3

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.