Skip to content

A Systematic Survey of Smart Contract Fuzzing : Methods, Techniques, and Architectures for Ethereum and Beyond

Oct 2026 · Open Collections
Blockchain Technology Applications and Security

Abstract

Blockchain architectures increasingly rely on smart contracts as programmable execution components, yet the security challenges they introduce remain only partially addressed. Fuzz testing has emerged as one of the leading automated techniques for smart contract vulnerability discovery; however, a systematic treatment linking classical fuzzing concepts to the specific architectural constraints of smart contract execution environments has remained elusive. We conduct a large-scale systematic review of 258 publications collected from Scopus and Google Scholar. The review is structured around four research questions covering general fuzzing limitations, EVM execution constraints, cross-contract interaction challenges, and technique transferability. The contributions are fourfold. First, we develop a conceptual taxonomy establishing an explicit correspondence between classical and smart contract fuzzing. Second, we present an architectural taxonomy of representative fuzzers unified under a generalised waypoint architecture that exposes key feedback domains and composition gaps. Third, we provide a categorised technique review spanning coverage-guided, hybrid, and learning-based approaches. Fourth, we offer a reproducibility critique with a structured research roadmap. Coverage-guided greybox fuzzing emerges as the dominant paradigm (51.2% of the 121 SC fuzzer tools); learning-based approaches (machine learning, reinforcement learning, and LLMs) are a small but emerging class, with LLM-guided fuzzing the fastest-emerging subcategory by recency. Feedback-domain composition remains sparse: most surveyed fuzzers combine only a few of the eight identified feedback domains, and none approaches the full set, leaving several high-value multi-domain compositions unexplored. Open challenges include scalable stateful exploration, standardised benchmarks and oracles, and EVM-specific architectural optimisations. The complete categorised corpus, coding, and search strategy are openly available.

View source

Similar papers

#machine learning Review Open access Oct 2014

Software development in startup companies: A systematic mapping study

The results indicate that software engineering work practices are chosen opportunistically, adapted and configured to provide value under the constrains imposed by the startup context.

Nicolò Paternoster, Carmine Giardino, M. Unterkalmsteiner et al. · 394 citations · ⚡54
#machine learning Review Open access Jun 2014

Why Early-Stage Software Startups Fail: A Behavioral Framework

This state-of-practice investigation was performed using a literature review followed by a multiple-case study approach and presents how inconsistency between managerial strategies and execution can lead to failure by means of a behavioral framework.

Carmine Giardino, Xiaofeng Wang, P. Abrahamsson · 175 citations · ⚡19
#machine learning Review Open access Oct 2016

“Failures” to be celebrated: an analysis of major pivots of software startups

This study conducts a case survey study based on the secondary data of the major pivots happened in 49 software startups, and demonstrates that customer need pivot is the most common among all pivot types.

Sohaib Shahid Bajwa, Xiaofeng Wang, Anh Nguyen-Duc et al. · 127 citations · ⚡15
#machine learning Review Open access May 2016

Key Challenges in Software Startups Across Life Cycle Stages

It is found that what perceived as biggest challenges by software startups do vary across different life cycle stages, even though its significance decreases when the learning focuses of the startups move from problem to solution and their products mature.

Xiaofeng Wang, Henry Edison, Sohaib Shahid Bajwa et al. · 62 citations · ⚡6

Related blog posts

MIT News · Artificial Intelligence Oct 23, 2026

Q&A: How AI came to model the “messy” human mind

Assistant Professor Benjamin Lindquist studies how engineers deliberately injected randomness into early AI, giving rise to deep-learning models that sometimes hallucinate.

We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads. See our Cookie Policy.