Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2603.06029

When Specifications Meet Reality: Uncovering API Inconsistencies in Ethereum Infrastructure

Jie Ma·Ningyu He·Jinwen Xi·Mingzhe Xing·Liangxin Liu·Jiushenzi Luo·Xiaopeng Fu·Chiachih Wu·Haoyu Wang·Ying Gao·Yinliang Yue
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The Ethereum ecosystem, which secures over $381 billion in assets, fundamentally relies on client APIs as the sole interface between users and the blockchain. However, these critical APIs suffer from widespread implementation inconsistencies, which can lead to financial discrepancies, degraded user experiences, and threats to network reliability. Despite this criticality, existing testing approaches remain manual and incomplete: they require extensive domain expertise, struggle to keep pace with Ethereum's rapid evolution, and fail to distinguish genuine bugs from acceptable implementation variations. We present APIDiffer, the first specification-guided differential testing framework designed to automatically detect API inconsistencies across Ethereum's diverse client ecosystem. APIDiffer transforms API specifications into comprehensive test suites through two key innovations: (1) specification-guided test input generation that creates both syntactically valid and invalid requests enriched with real-time blockchain data, and (2) specification-aware false positive filtering that leverages large language models to distinguish genuine bugs from acceptable variations. Our evaluation across all 11 major Ethereum clients reveals the pervasiveness of API bugs in production systems. APIDiffer uncovered 72 bugs, with 90.28% already confirmed or fixed by developers. Beyond these raw numbers, APIDiffer achieves up to 89.67% higher code coverage than existing tools and reduces false positive rates by 37.38%. The Ethereum community's response validates our impact: developers have integrated our test cases, expressed interest in adopting our methodology, and escalated one bug to the official Ethereum Project Management meeting.

Explore related subjects

cs.SEcs.CR

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Jie Ma, Ningyu He, Jinwen Xi, Mingzhe Xing, Liangxin Liu, Jiushenzi Luo, Xiaopeng Fu, Chiachih Wu, Haoyu Wang, Ying Gao, Yinliang Yue. 2026-03-06. When Specifications Meet Reality: Uncovering API Inconsistencies in Ethereum Infrastructure. https://doi.org/10.1145/3798219

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

LLM-Based Repair of Static Nullability Errors

Modern Java projects increasingly adopt static analysis tools that prevent null-pointer exceptions by treating nullness as a type property. However, integrating such tools into large, existing codebases remains a significant challenge. While annotation inference can eliminate many errors automatically, a subset of residual errors $-$ typically a mix of real bugs and false positives $-$ often persists and can only be resolved via code changes. Manually addressing these errors is tedious and error-prone. Large language models (LLMs) offer a promising path toward automating these repairs, but naively prompted LLMs often generate incorrect, contextually inappropriate edits. We present NullRepair, a system that integrates LLMs into a structured workflow for resolving the errors from a nullability checker. NullRepair's decision process follows a flowchart derived from manual analysis of 200 real-world errors. It leverages static analysis to identify safe and unsafe usage regions of symbols, using error-free usage examples to contextualize model prompts. Patches are generated through an iterative interaction with the LLM that incorporates project-wide context and decision logic. Our evaluation on 12 real-world Java projects shows that NullRepair resolves 63% of the 1,119 nullability errors that remain after applying a state-of-the-art annotation inference technique. Unlike two baselines (single-shot prompt and mini-SWE-agent), NullRepair also largely preserves program semantics, with all unit tests passing in 10/12 projects after applying every edit proposed by NullRepair, and 98% or more tests passing in the remaining two projects.

cs.SE↗
arXiv2026

Metamodel-Guided Model Generation with Layered Constraints

Large language models (LLMs) enable natural-language interaction in engineering modeling, but generated models may violate structural constraints, domain rules, or task requirements. We propose a metamodel-guided model generation method that coordinates generation-time constraints and post-generation validation. The method transforms metamodel information, uses its terminology to guide structured constraint extraction from specifications, and links constraints to metamodel elements while recording their sources in an Integrated Constraint Model (ICM). For each task, relevant constraints are bound to concrete objects, values, and references. The generation-time constraint layer (L1) restricts candidate content. The post-generation validation layer (L2) checks constructed models and serialized artifacts, and task acceptance checks retain the original requirements throughout repair. Deterministic procedures construct and serialize models, while LLMs propose candidate content and repairs. Validation uses existing domain tools and checkers written by humans with LLM assistance. Experiments cover AUTOSAR, railway models, and structured decisions in private international law. All 60 AUTOSAR generation runs passed acceptance within the declared task scope, and all 255 resulting ARXML files passed XSD validation. In a separate controlled AUTOSAR repair experiment, all 85 core fault units and 15 prespecified substitute units were restored within one repair round. A local AUTOSAR experiment recorded interventions during stepwise generation. The results support coordinating generation constraints, domain checks, and task acceptance to construct models and guide bounded repair.

cs.SE↗
arXiv2026

VeriSoftBench: Repository-Scale Formal Verification Benchmarks for Lean

Large language models have achieved striking results in interactive theorem proving, particularly in Lean. However, most benchmarks for LLM-based proof automation are drawn from mathematics in the Mathlib ecosystem, whereas proofs in software verification are developed inside definition-rich codebases with substantial project-specific libraries. We introduce VeriSoftBench, a benchmark of 500 Lean 4 proof obligations drawn from open-source formal-methods developments and packaged to preserve realistic repository context and cross-file dependencies. Our evaluation of frontier LLMs and specialized provers yields three observations. First, provers tuned for Mathlib-style mathematics transfer poorly to this repository-centric setting. Second, success is strongly correlated with transitive repository dependence: tasks whose proofs draw on large, multi-hop dependency closures are less likely to be solved. Third, providing curated context restricted to a proof's dependency closure improves performance relative to exposing the full repository, but nevertheless leaves substantial room for improvement. Our benchmark and evaluation suite are released at https://github.com/utopia-group/VeriSoftBench.

cs.SE↗