{"record_type":"pith_number_record","schema_url":"https://pith.science/schemas/pith-number/v1.json","pith_number":"pith:2020:OAYLNZOPSOAJV3M5SKU5KX7FHC","short_pith_number":"pith:OAYLNZOP","schema_version":"1.0","canonical_sha256":"7030b6e5cf93809aed9d92a9d55fe538a71ad4f899a22924420747cd066d00e2","source":{"kind":"arxiv","id":"2005.11613","version":1},"attestation_state":"computed","paper":{"title":"How Effective are Smart Contract Analysis Tools? Evaluating Smart Contract Static Analysis Tools Using Bug Injection","license":"http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/","headline":"","cross_cats":[],"primary_cat":"cs.SE","authors_text":"Asem Ghaleb, Karthik Pattabiraman","submitted_at":"2020-05-23T22:21:55Z","abstract_excerpt":"Security attacks targeting smart contracts have been on the rise, which have led to financial loss and erosion of trust. Therefore, it is important to enable developers to discover security vulnerabilities in smart contracts before deployment. A number of static analysis tools have been developed for finding security bugs in smart contracts. However, despite the numerous bug-finding tools, there is no systematic approach to evaluate the proposed tools and gauge their effectiveness. This paper proposes SolidiFI, an automated and systematic approach for evaluating smart contract static analysis "},"verification_status":{"content_addressed":true,"pith_receipt":true,"author_attested":false,"weak_author_claims":0,"strong_author_claims":0,"externally_anchored":false,"storage_verified":false,"citation_signatures":0,"replication_records":0,"graph_snapshot":true,"references_resolved":false,"formal_links_present":false},"canonical_record":{"source":{"id":"2005.11613","kind":"arxiv","version":1},"metadata":{"license":"http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/","primary_cat":"cs.SE","submitted_at":"2020-05-23T22:21:55Z","cross_cats_sorted":[],"title_canon_sha256":"90c3a0a824961d7a1d82280201998e3b3a76a5c0c13c640598cf5029ca5c74ae","abstract_canon_sha256":"f8751a5a18218c76b409b0dfe3e3232b343bd698bbf1584057eee4f27137a7fe"},"schema_version":"1.0"},"receipt":{"kind":"pith_receipt","key_id":"pith-v1-2026-05","algorithm":"ed25519","signed_at":"2026-07-05T01:05:16.213737Z","signature_b64":"ZXMAiSSgrzotIcjFCah/IcVEmydEvoPHcMVZjX4HeasERSjwXChhmLZHPL96pOo4/n6ShvZh5g9usaPK3dU7CA==","signed_message":"canonical_sha256_bytes","builder_version":"pith-number-builder-2026-05-17-v1","receipt_version":"0.3","canonical_sha256":"7030b6e5cf93809aed9d92a9d55fe538a71ad4f899a22924420747cd066d00e2","last_reissued_at":"2026-07-05T01:05:16.213341Z","signature_status":"signed_v1","first_computed_at":"2026-07-05T01:05:16.213341Z","public_key_fingerprint":"8d4b5ee74e4693bcd1df2446408b0d54"},"graph_snapshot":{"paper":{"title":"How Effective are Smart Contract Analysis Tools? Evaluating Smart Contract Static Analysis Tools Using Bug Injection","license":"http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/","headline":"","cross_cats":[],"primary_cat":"cs.SE","authors_text":"Asem Ghaleb, Karthik Pattabiraman","submitted_at":"2020-05-23T22:21:55Z","abstract_excerpt":"Security attacks targeting smart contracts have been on the rise, which have led to financial loss and erosion of trust. Therefore, it is important to enable developers to discover security vulnerabilities in smart contracts before deployment. A number of static analysis tools have been developed for finding security bugs in smart contracts. However, despite the numerous bug-finding tools, there is no systematic approach to evaluate the proposed tools and gauge their effectiveness. This paper proposes SolidiFI, an automated and systematic approach for evaluating smart contract static analysis "},"claims":{"count":0,"items":[],"snapshot_sha256":"258153158e38e3291e3d48162225fcdb2d5a3ed65a07baac614ab91432fd4f57"},"source":{"id":"2005.11613","kind":"arxiv","version":1},"verdict":{"id":null,"model_set":{},"created_at":null,"strongest_claim":"","one_line_summary":"","pipeline_version":null,"weakest_assumption":"","pith_extraction_headline":""},"integrity":{"clean":true,"summary":{"advisory":0,"critical":0,"by_detector":{},"informational":0},"endpoint":"/pith/2005.11613/integrity.json","findings":[],"available":true,"detectors_run":[],"snapshot_sha256":"c28c3603d3b5d939e8dc4c7e95fa8dfce3d595e45f758748cecf8e644a296938"},"references":{"count":0,"sample":[],"resolved_work":0,"snapshot_sha256":"258153158e38e3291e3d48162225fcdb2d5a3ed65a07baac614ab91432fd4f57","internal_anchors":0},"formal_canon":{"evidence_count":0,"snapshot_sha256":"258153158e38e3291e3d48162225fcdb2d5a3ed65a07baac614ab91432fd4f57"},"author_claims":{"count":0,"strong_count":0,"snapshot_sha256":"258153158e38e3291e3d48162225fcdb2d5a3ed65a07baac614ab91432fd4f57"},"builder_version":"pith-number-builder-2026-05-17-v1"},"aliases":[{"alias_kind":"arxiv","alias_value":"2005.11613","created_at":"2026-07-05T01:05:16.213406+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"arxiv_version","alias_value":"2005.11613v1","created_at":"2026-07-05T01:05:16.213406+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"doi","alias_value":"10.48550/arxiv.2005.11613","created_at":"2026-07-05T01:05:16.213406+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"pith_short_12","alias_value":"OAYLNZOPSOAJ","created_at":"2026-07-05T01:05:16.213406+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"pith_short_16","alias_value":"OAYLNZOPSOAJV3M5","created_at":"2026-07-05T01:05:16.213406+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"pith_short_8","alias_value":"OAYLNZOP","created_at":"2026-07-05T01:05:16.213406+00:00"}],"events":[],"event_summary":{},"paper_claims":[],"inbound_citations":{"count":1,"internal_anchor_count":1,"sample":[{"citing_arxiv_id":"2608.10265","citing_title":"Enhancing Reliability of Symbolic Execution Tools for Smart Contract Analysis through Rule-Based False Positive Reduction","ref_index":3,"is_internal_anchor":true}]},"formal_canon":{"evidence_count":0,"sample":[],"anchors":[]},"links":{"html":"https://pith.science/pith/OAYLNZOPSOAJV3M5SKU5KX7FHC","json":"https://pith.science/pith/OAYLNZOPSOAJV3M5SKU5KX7FHC.json","graph_json":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/OAYLNZOPSOAJV3M5SKU5KX7FHC/graph.json","events_json":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/OAYLNZOPSOAJV3M5SKU5KX7FHC/events.json","paper":"https://pith.science/paper/OAYLNZOP"},"agent_actions":{"view_html":"https://pith.science/pith/OAYLNZOPSOAJV3M5SKU5KX7FHC","download_json":"https://pith.science/pith/OAYLNZOPSOAJV3M5SKU5KX7FHC.json","view_paper":"https://pith.science/paper/OAYLNZOP","resolve_alias":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/resolve?arxiv=2005.11613&json=true","fetch_graph":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/OAYLNZOPSOAJV3M5SKU5KX7FHC/graph.json","fetch_events":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/OAYLNZOPSOAJV3M5SKU5KX7FHC/events.json","actions":{"anchor_timestamp":"https://pith.science/pith/OAYLNZOPSOAJV3M5SKU5KX7FHC/action/timestamp_anchor","attest_storage":"https://pith.science/pith/OAYLNZOPSOAJV3M5SKU5KX7FHC/action/storage_attestation","attest_author":"https://pith.science/pith/OAYLNZOPSOAJV3M5SKU5KX7FHC/action/author_attestation","sign_citation":"https://pith.science/pith/OAYLNZOPSOAJV3M5SKU5KX7FHC/action/citation_signature","submit_replication":"https://pith.science/pith/OAYLNZOPSOAJV3M5SKU5KX7FHC/action/replication_record"}},"created_at":"2026-07-05T01:05:16.213406+00:00","updated_at":"2026-07-05T01:05:16.213406+00:00"}