Demo Data from SIGIR 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Lorenzo Benetollo
dblp:369/0955
· DBLP profile ↗
3ranked-venue papers
1as first author
3since 2021 · last 2026
0009-0000-9388-4391ORCID · corroborated
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Systems, architecture and hardware · 2 · 2 since 2021Security and privacy · 2 · 1 first-author · 2 since 2021
Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.
| Network and information security
1 paper |
Blockchain and cryptocurrency security · 100% | |
| Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
1 paper |
Program analysis · 100% |
Topics — the 1 heaviest of 2, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Program analysis › binary analysis
bytecode analysis |
0.3 | 1 | 2025 | Let's Move2EVM · USENIX Security Symposium 2025 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
static analysis · 1.7formal methods · 1.7
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026 | Reentrancy Detection in the Age of LLMs
Dalila Ressi, Alvise Spanò, Matteo Rizzo, Lorenzo Benetollo, Sabina Rossi |
DSN | 4 |
| 2025 | Let's Move2EVM
Lorenzo Benetollo, Andreas Lackner, Matteo Maffei, Markus Scherer |
USENIX Security Symposium | 1 |
| 2025 | Smart contract languages: A comparative analysisabstractSmart contracts have played a pivotal role in the evolution of blockchains and Decentralized Applications (DApps). As DApps continue to gain widespread adoption, multiple smart contract languages have been and are being made available to developers, each with its distinctive features, strengths, and weaknesses. In this paper, we examine the smart contract languages used in major blockchain platforms, with the goal of providing a comprehensive assessment of their main properties. Our analysis targets the programming languages rather than the underlying architecture: as a result, while we do consider the interplay between language design and blockchain model, our main focus remains on language-specific features such as usability, programming style, safety and security. To conduct our assessment, we propose an original benchmark which encompasses a wide, yet manageable, spectrum of key use cases that cut across all the smart contract languages under examination. • We give an abstract overview of smart contract platforms, discussing the impact of different design choices. • We illustrate by examples how different design choices give rise to different programming styles for smart contracts. • We consider 6 leading smart contract languages: Solidity (Ethereum), Rust (Solana), Aiken (Cardano), PyTeal (Algorand), Move (Aptos), SmartPy (Tezos). • We develop an open-source benchmark of use cases of smart contracts, implemented in all the languages in our selection. • Based on our benchmark, we evaluate smart contract languages focussing on their security, code readability, usability, and functionalities. Massimo Bartoletti, Lorenzo Benetollo, Michele Bugliesi, Silvia Crafa, Giacomo Dal Sasso, Roberto Pettinau, Andrea Pinna 0002, Mattia Piras, Sabina Rossi, Stefano Salis, Alvise Spanò, Viacheslav Tkachenko, Roberto Tonelli, Roberto Zunino |
Future Gener. Comput. Syst. | 2 |