Skip to content
OpenTrain AIFor AI Companies

Empirical Review of Automated Analysis Tools on 47,587 Ethereum Smart Contracts

Thomas Durieux, João F. Ferreira, Rui Abreu, Pedro CruzPublished Oct 23, 2019
arXiv PDF DOI
Researcher verdict
Starting point
Use as implementation starting point
Benchmark evidence
Thin evidence
Verify before relying
Time to first repro
A few hours
Fast first run
Risk flags
1
Review before use

Abstract

Domain fit: AI-adjacent · Paper appears method- or tooling-adjacent to AI workflows with partial ecosystem coverage.

Over the last few years, there has been substantial research on automated analysis, testing, and debugging of Ethereum smart contracts. However, it is not trivial to compare and reproduce that research. To address this, we present an empirical evaluation of 9 state-of-the-art automated analysis tools using two new datasets: i) a dataset of 69 annotated vulnerable smart contracts that can be used to evaluate the precision of analysis tools; and ii) a dataset with all the smart contracts in the Ethereum Blockchain that have Solidity source code available on Etherscan (a total of 47,518 contracts). The datasets are part of SmartBugs, a new extendable execution framework that we created to facilitate the integration and comparison between multiple analysis tools and the analysis of Ethereum smart contracts. We used SmartBugs to execute the 9 automated analysis tools on the two datasets. In total, we ran 428,337 analyses that took approximately 564 days and 3 hours, being the largest experimental setup to date both in the number of tools and in execution time. We found that only 42% of the vulnerabilities from our annotated dataset are detected by all the tools, with the tool Mythril having the higher accuracy (27%). When considering the largest dataset, we observed that 97% of contracts are tagged as vulnerable, thus suggesting a considerable number of false positives. Indeed, only a small number of vulnerabilities (and of only two categories) were detected simultaneously by four or more tools.

Results and benchmarks

Freshness tier: cold
Over the last few years, there has been substantial research on automated analysis, testing, and debugging of Ethereum smart contracts.

Implementation

Best maintained implementation now

Recommended
Confidence: High
Reproducibility: Moderate

SmartBugs: A Framework to Analyze Ethereum Smart Contracts

683 stars · 163 forks · Last push May 20, 2026 · Apache-2.0 license

  • License
  • CI
  • Dependencies
  • Docker

Official implementation from Papers with Code · Repository link is mentioned in the paper metadata · Strong overlap with paper title keywords

Why this implementation
Confidence: high

smartbugs/smartbugs is the strongest maintained implementation based on ranking signals. License is declared (Apache-2.0). Dependency/environment manifests are present.

Open smartbugs/smartbugs
Reproduction risks
  • No CI workflows detected
  • Selected smartbugs/smartbugs as the strongest maintained implementation for new work.
  • Includes dependency/environment manifest signals.
  • Repository activity is within the last 24 months.
  • Official repository is preserved separately as historical context.

Compare implementation paths

Compare maintenance quality, reproducibility coverage, and evidence confidence before choosing a reproduction baseline.

smartbugs/smartbugs
best maintained
Maintenance
Recently updated
Confidence
High
Reproducibility
Moderate
Stars
683
Last push
May 20, 2026 (97d)

Official implementation from Papers with Code · Repository link is mentioned in the paper metadata

  • No CI pipeline detected
  • No Docker setup
smartbugs/smartbugs-wild
historical official
Maintenance
Stale
Confidence
High
Reproducibility
Limited
Stars
210
Last push
Jun 3, 2020 (2274d)

Official implementation from Papers with Code · Repository link is mentioned in the paper metadata

  • No push in 12+ months
  • No CI pipeline detected
  • No tagged releases
Maintenance
Stale
Confidence
High
Reproducibility
Limited
Stars
86
Last push
Jul 24, 2020 (2223d)

Official implementation from Papers with Code · Repository link is mentioned in the paper metadata

  • No push in 12+ months
  • No CI pipeline detected
  • No tagged releases

Reproduction readiness

Time to first repro: hours
Last checked: Aug 22, 2026

Setup required

Dependencies pinned, manual setup needed

  • smartbugs/smartbugs has pyproject.toml but requires manual environment setup.
  • No Dockerfile, so you will set up the environment manually.
  • No CI pipeline, so test coverage is unknown.
Open smartbugs/smartbugs

Quick start

git clone https://github.com/smartbugs/smartbugs.git
pip install -e .

Repositories and ecosystem

Official

  • This repository contains the RAW results of the vulnerability analysis of 9 tools on 47,587 smart contracts. These results are presented and discussed in Durieux et al. (ICSE 2020)

    86 stars · 26 forks · Last push Jul 24, 2020 · Apache-2.0 license

Community

No additional community repositories detected yet.

Hugging Face artifacts

No direct paper-linked artifacts were found. Showing strongest curated related artifacts for faster exploration.

Models

No trustworthy models matches right now.

Search models on Hugging Face

Datasets

Curated Related

Research context

377

Citations

40

References

Tasks

Solidity, Computer science, Debugging, False positive paradox, Software bug, Static analysis, Data mining

Methods

None detected

Domains

None detected

Evaluation and human feedback data

Open this paper in HFEPX to review benchmark signals, evaluation modes, and human-feedback protocol context.

Open in HFEPX
Explore similar papers

Jump to Paper2Code search queries derived from this paper's research context.

Data includes links from Papers with Code ( CC-BY-SA-4.0 ).