1. Aho, A.V.; Lam, M.S.; Sethi, R.; Ullman, J.D. Compilers: Principles, Techniques, and Tools, 2nd ed.; Addison Wesley: Boston, MA, USA, 2006.
2. Chen, H.; Xue, Y.; Li, Y.; Chen, B.; Xie, X.; Wu, X.; Liu, Y. Hawkeye: Towards a Desired Directed Grey-box Fuzzer. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security, Toronto, ON, Canada, 15–19 October 2018; pp. 2095–2108.
3. Driessen, S.W.; Di Nucci, D.; Tamburri, D.A.; van den Heuvel, W.J. SolAR: Automated test-suite generation for solidity smart contracts. Sci. Comput. Program. 2024, 232, 103036.
4. Durieux, T.; Ferreira, J.F.; Abreu, R.; Cruz, P. Empirical Review of Automated Analysis Tools on 47,587 Ethereum Smart Contracts. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering, Seoul, Republic of Korea, 27 June–19 July 2020; pp. 530–541.
5. Górski, T. AdapT: A reusable package for implementing smart contracts that process transactions of congruous types. Softw. Impacts 2024, 21, 100694.
6. Górski, T. SmarTS: A Java package for smart contract test suite generation and execution. SoftwareX 2024, 26, 101698.
7. Górski, T. Verification of Architectural Views Model 1+5 Applicability. In Computer Aided Systems Theory—EUROCAST 2019; Moreno-Díaz, R., Pichler, F., Quesada-Arencibia, A., Eds.; Lecture Notes in Computer Science; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; Volume 12013, pp. 499–506.
8. Górski, T. The 1+5 Architectural Views Model in Designing Blockchain and IT System Integration Solutions. Symmetry 2021, 13, 2000.
9. Olsthoorn, M.; Stallenberg, D.; Van Deursen, A.; Panichella, A. SynTest-Solidity: Automated Test Case Generation and Fuzzing for Smart Contracts. In Proceedings of the 2022 IEEE/ACM 44th International Conference on Software Engineering: Companion Proceedings (ICSE-Companion), Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 21–29 May 2022; pp. 202–206.
10. Sagar Kesarpu. Contract Testing with PACT: Ensuring Reliable API Interactions in Distributed Systems. The American Journal of Engineering and Technology, 7(06), 14–23, 2025.
https://doi.org/10.37547/tajet/Volume07Issue06-03
11. So, S.; Hong, S.; Oh, H. SmarTest: Effectively Hunting Vulnerable Transaction Sequences in Smart Contracts through Language Model-Guided Symbolic Execution. In Proceedings of the USENIX Security Symposium, Virtual, 11–13 August 2021.
12. Su, J.; Dai, H.N.; Zhao, L.; Zibin Zheng, X.L. Effectively Generating Vulnerable Transaction Sequences in Smart Contracts with Reinforcement Learning-guided Fuzzing. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, Rochester, MI, USA, 10–14 October 2022; pp. 1–12.
13. Sujeetha, R.; Akila, K. Improving Coverage and Vulnerability Detection in Smart Contract Testing Using Self-Adaptive Learning GA. IETE J. Res. 2023, 70, 1593–1606.
14. Wang, X.; Xie, Z.; He, J.; Zhao, G.; Nie, R. Basis Path Coverage Criteria for Smart Contract Application Testing. In Proceedings of the 2019 International Conference on Cyber-Enabled Distributed Computing and Knowledge Discovery (CyberC), Guilin, China, 17–19 October 2019; pp. 34–41.
15. Wu, X.; Du, X.; Yang, Q.; Liu, A.; Wang, N.; Wang, W. TaintGuard: Preventing implicit privilege leakage in smart contract based on taint tracking at abstract syntax tree level. J. Syst. Archit. 2023, 141, 102925.
16. SoftSec Lab. Smartian GitHub Repository. Available online:
https://github.com/SoftSec-KAIST/Smartian (accessed on 11 February 2025).