BenchCouncil Transactions on Benchmarks, Standards and

Evaluations (TBench) is an open-access multi-disciplinary

journal dedicated to benchmarks, standards, evaluations,

optimizations, and data sets. This journal is a peer-reviewed,

subsidized open access journal where The International Open

Benchmark Council pays the OA fee. Authors do not have to

pay any open access publication fee. However, at least one of

the authors must register BenchCouncil International

Symposium on Benchmarking, Measuring and Optimizing

(Bench) (https://www.benchcouncil.org/bench/) and present

their work. It seeks a fast-track publication with an average

turnaround time of one month.

BenchCouncil Transactions on Benchmarks, Standards and

Evaluations, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.66834/9a7y0c13

Research Article

RESEARCH ARTICLE

ABWS: The Arabic Boundary-aware Word

Segmentation Benchmark for Reproducible Evaluation

Huda AlShuhayeb

1,∗

and Behrouz Minaei-Bidgoli

1,∗

School of Computer Engineering, Iran University of Science and Technology (IUST), Tehran, Iran

∗

Corresponding author: hudaalshuhayeb@gmail.com; b_minae@iust.ac.ir

Received on 27 January 2026; Accepted on 7 April 2026

Abstract

With the rapid adoption of natural language processing (NLP) systems for morphologically rich languages, it has

become increasingly imperative to standardize a common set of measures and evaluation practices to ensure reproducibil-

ity and fair comparison. Arabic word segmentation serves as a foundational layer in the NLP software stack; however,

the ﬁeld remains fragmented due to inconsistent datasets and an overreliance on opaque, aggregate metrics that mask

systemic architectural biases.

We present ABWS (Arabic Boundary-aware Word Segmentation), a scalable and publicly available benchmarking

system designed for the rigorous, reproducible evaluation of diverse segmentation paradigms. To enable paradigm-agnostic

comparison across rule-based, statistical, and neural models, ABWS introduces a canonical boundary vector abstraction

that normalizes disparate system outputs into a uniﬁed evaluation interface. The benchmarking harness includes a manu-

ally veriﬁed gold-standard workload of 212,873 words across diverse genres and integrates seven widely used segmentation

systems as reproducible baselines.

Our systematic evaluation reveals that while neural subword-based models are robust for vocabulary compression,

they exhibit extreme Over-Segmentation Ratios (OSR > 0.58), leading to a signiﬁcant drop in word-level exact match ac-

curacy compared to rule-based engines. We further introduce Critical Boundary Accuracy (CBA), a linguistically weighted

metric that prioritizes high-impact morphological boundaries. Our cross-layer analysis demonstrates that CBA is highly

predictive of downstream performance in Machine Translation and Named Entity Recognition (ρ > 0.88), whereas tradi-

tional token-level F

scores often obscure these performance bottlenecks.

By providing a containerized evaluation pipeline and versioned system artifacts, ABWS establishes a new standard

for methodological rigor in Arabic NLP research, oﬀering a template for benchmarking other morphologically complex

languages within the broader computational ecosystem.

Key words: Arabic NLP, Morphological Segmentation, Benchmarking, Reproducibility, Boundary Errors, Error

Taxonomy, Benchmark Traceability, Evaluation Conditions

1. Introduction

With the rapid proliferation and deployment of natural language

processing (NLP) systems across global industries, it has become in-

creasingly imperative to standardize a common set of measures and

evaluation practices to ensure reproducibility and fair comparison.

For morphologically rich languages (MRLs) such as Arabic, word

segmentation serves as a foundational preprocessing layer in the

NLP software stack. Despite its critical role, the ﬁeld remains frag-

mented, lacking a uniﬁed benchmarking infrastructure capable of

systematically evaluating the diverse array of rule-based, statistical,

and neural segmentation paradigms.

To illustrate the unique complexity of Arabic word segmenta-

tion compared to languages like English, consider the single Arabic

word token ’fabi-iltizmi-him’. In English, this is expressed as a multi-

word phrase: ’and by their commitment’. While English maintains

clear whitespace boundaries between the conjunction (’and’), prepo-

sition (’by’), noun (’commitment’), and possessive pronoun (’their’),

Arabic merges these distinct functional morphemes into a single or-

thographic unit. This ’clitic stacking’ creates a signiﬁcant challenge

for NLP systems, as a single segmentation errorsuch as failing to

isolate the proclitic ’fa-’ (and) or the preposition ’bi-’ (by)can lead

to a complete misinterpretation of the word’s syntactic role. Unlike

English, where tokenization is largely a trivial whitespace-splitting

task, Arabic segmentation requires a sophisticated b oundary-aware

analysis to recover these latent grammatical structures, making it a

critical pre-processing bottleneck.

Arabic, spoken by over 400 million people, presents unique chal-

lenges for system evaluation due to its complex morphology, where

a single space-delimited string can represent multiple concatenated

morphemes (roots, patterns, and aﬃxes) [

1]. The performance of a

AlShuhayeb et al.

segmentation system directly dictates the eﬃciency and accuracy of

downstream tasks, including machine translation [2] and information

retrieval [3]. However, the absence of a standardized benchmarking

harness prevents researchers from understanding how diﬀerent archi-

tectural choices. such as subword-based methods versus traditional

statistical modelsbehave across varied data modalities and genres.

Current evaluation practices in Arabic NLP suﬀer from three

critical methodological gaps that hinder the development of high-

performance standards:

1. Lack of a Standardized Benchmark Suite: Many evalu-

ations rely on non-public or inconsistently annotated datasets,

making it impossible to replicate results or perform “apples-

to-apples” comparisons between emerging neural models and

established baselines [4].

2. Metric Opacity and Coarse Granularity: Most systems

report aggregate token-level F

scores. These “black-box” met-

rics mask qualitative diﬀerences in boundary placement errors,

such as the over-segmentation of stems versus the under-

segmentation of clitic clusters, which have vastly diﬀerent

impacts on system usability [5].

3. Isolation from Downstream Impact: There is a lack of

empirical evidence linking speciﬁc segmentation error types to

performance degradation in full-stack NLP pipelines. This lim-

its the ability of systems engineers to perform task-aware mo del

selection.

To address these challenges, we introduce ABWS (Arabic

Boundary-aware Word Segmentation), a scalable and publicly avail-

able benchmarking system designed for the rigorous and repro-

ducible evaluation of Arabic segmentation. Similar to benchmarking

eﬀorts in other computational domains (e.g., MLCommons), ABWS

provides a standardized framework that decouples the evaluation

logic from the underlying model implementation.

The primary contributions of this work are as follows:

• A Standardized Gold-Standard Dataset: We present a

manually veriﬁed dataset comprising 212,873 words across di-

verse genres, providing a representative workload for evaluating

system robustness and generality.

• A Uniﬁed Benchmarking Harness: We establish repro-

ducible baselines by integrating seven widely used segmentation

systemsspanning rule-based, statistical, and neural paradigm-

sunder a common evaluation protocol.

• Boundary-aware Metrics and Taxonomy: We extend tra-

ditional evaluation practices by introducing a ﬁne-grained error

taxonomy that quantiﬁes boundary placement decisions, oﬀering

deeper insights into system-level bottlenecks.

• Cross-Layer Impact Analysis: We provide a systematic

study of how segmentation errors propagate through down-

stream NLP tasks, enabling a more holistic assessment of

performance beyond simple accuracy scores.

By providing the dataset, standardized evaluation scripts, and

baseline system outputs, ABWS aims to establish a new standard

for methodological rigor in Arabic NLP. This framework not only fa-

cilitates transparent performance tracking but also serves as a model

for b enchmarking other morphologically complex languages within

the broader NLP ecosystem.

The remainder of this paper is organized as follows: Section 2

reviews existing segmentation and evaluation practices; Section 3

details the design and comp osition of the ABWS benchmark; Sec-

tion 4 presents the boundary-aware evaluation framework; Section 5

reports experimental results and systematic error analysis; Section 6

examines implications for downstream task performance; and Sec-

tion 7 concludes with future directions for standardization in the

ﬁeld.

2. Related Work

This section reviews prior work from a benchmark- engineering

perspective, with particular attention to three dimensions: (i) the

evolution of Arabic morphological segmentation systems, (ii) exist-

ing evaluation methodologies and benchmarks for segmentation, and

(iii) recent advances in benchmarking theory that emphasize the

explicit speciﬁcation of evaluation conditions, evaluation systems,

and standards as prerequisites for comparability and reproducibility

[6–8].

2.1. Arabic Morphological Segmentation Systems

Arabic morphological segmentation has evolved through several

methodological paradigms. Early systems were predominantly rule-

based and lexicon-driven, aiming to produce linguistically well-

formed analyses grounded in classical morphological theory. Systems

such as MADA and AlKhalil Morpho Sys exemplify this generation,

integrating rich lexical resources with hand-crafted rules and con-

textual disambiguation [9–11]. While these systems achieved high

linguistic precision, they were often constrained by limited cover-

age, sensitivity to orthographic variation, and reduced robustness

to out-of-vocabulary forms and non-canonical usage [

12].

To address coverage and scalability, statistical segmentation ap-

proaches emerged. Data-driven models based on conditional random

ﬁelds and discriminative classiﬁers learned boundary decisions from

annotated corpora, notably the Penn Arabic Treebank. Farasa fur-

ther emphasized eﬃciency and deployability by introducing a fast,

deterministic segmentation pipeline with statistical ranking, en-

abling near real-time processing on large corpora [

13]. These systems

improved robustness but often traded linguistic interpretability for

speed and generalization.

In contemporary NLP pipelines, segmentation is frequently in-

duced implicitly through subword tokenization. Methods such as

Byte-Pair Encoding (BPE) and SentencePiece, as well as WordPiece

tokenization used in transformer pretraining, generate boundaries

optimized for vocabulary compression and language modeling ob-

jectives rather than morphological validity [

14–16]. Arabic-focused

pretrained models, including AraBERT and later AraELECTRA

and MARBERT, inherit this tokenization-centric notion of segmen-

tation, which often results in boundaries that cut across morphemes

or clitic units [17, 18]. Although recent work explores explicit neu-

ral segmentation via boundary prediction or multitask learning with

orthographic pro cesses, such approaches remain fragmented across

datasets and annotation conventions and are not yet standardized

[19].

Despite this methodological diversity, there is no consensus on

an “optimal” segmentation strategy. In practice, system selection is

frequently driven by pragmatic constraints such as speed, memory

footprint, or compatibility with downstream models rather than by

linguistic or task-aware criteria.

2.2. Evaluation of Arabic Segmentation

Early evaluations of Arabic segmentation typically relied on align-

ment with treebank-style gold annotations and reported boundary-

level precision, recall, and F

. However, treating all boundaries

as equally important obscures qualitatively diﬀerent error types,

such as under-segmentation of proclitics versus over-segmentation

of stems [? ]. Task-oriented studies demonstrated that segmentation

errors have asymmetric downstream impact: over-segmentation may

harm precision in information retrieval, while under-segmentation

may reduce recall or impair translation quality [20, 21].

More recent analyses highlight that tokenization and segmenta-

tion choices also aﬀect the eﬃciency and behavior of transformer-

based models, inﬂuencing both performance and computational cost

[22]. Nevertheless, most comparative studies still report aggregate

metrics computed under heterogeneous and often undocumented

evaluation conditions, limiting interpretability and reproducibility.

From a standards perspective, a central limitation of prior work

is the absence of a standardized protocol for comparing fundamen-

tally diﬀerent segmentation paradigms. Morphological segmenters

produce linguistically motivated morpheme boundaries, whereas

subword tokenizers generate boundaries derived from statistical vo-

cabulary construction. Without an explicit mapping between these

representations, evaluation scores across paradigms become eﬀec-

tively incomparable, even when computed on the same dataset [

6].

Reproducibility is further hindered when code, data splits, normal-

ization policies, and evaluation scripts are not fully speciﬁed or

publicly available [4].

2.3. Benchmarking Practices, Standards, and

Robustness

General-purpose NLP benchmarks such as GLUE and SuperGLUE

demonstrated the value of uniﬁed tasks, datasets, and scoring

protocols for accelerating progress through comparability [23, 24].

Subsequent benchmarking research has clariﬁed, however, that a

benchmark should not be understoo d as a dataset alone, but as a

complete evaluation system whose conclusions depend on explicitly

deﬁned evaluation conditions (EC), a concrete evaluation system

(ES), and a value function that encodes what is being optimized

[6, 7].

Within this perspective, a dataset is only meaningful insofar as

it instantiates a representative workload. That is, benchmark data

should approximate the structural, distributional, and operational

characteristics of real-world inputs that systems are expected to

process. ABWS adopts this workload-centric view explicitly: the

curated corpus is not treated as a passive collection of labeled ex-

amples, but as a controlled workload designed to stress-test Arabic

segmentation systems under realistic linguistic conditions, including

dense clitic stacking, derivational morphology, orthographic vari-

ation, and genre-speciﬁc constructions common in formal Arabic

text.

Recent benchmark frameworks emphasize workload characteri-

zation as a prerequisite for valid measurement. For example, AICB

formalizes benchmarks around representative workloads executed

under reproducible environments and explicitly deﬁned ECs, en-

suring that performance claims reﬂect behavior under realistic

operating conditions rather than isolated test sets [

7]. Similarly,

COADBench argues that benchmarks must align evaluation met-

rics with practical outcomes, demonstrating that mischaracterized

workloads can render even precise metrics misleading [

8].

In the context of Arabic segmentation, workload characterization

is particularly critical. Segmentation diﬃculty varies substantially

across registers and genres, and small shifts in text composition can

induce large changes in boundary distributions and error modes.

ABWS therefore ﬁxes and documents workload propertiesinclud-

ing genre, morphological density, normalization rules, and boundary

conventionsso that reported results correspond to a clearly speciﬁed

and reproducible segmentation workload, rather than an abstract

notion of Arabic data.

Two robustness issues follow directly from this workload-centric

framing. First, domain shiftfor example between Classical Arabic,

Modern Standard Arabic, and informal or social media textcan sub-

stantially alter error distributions and system rankings unless ECs

such as genre selection, orthographic normalization, and boundary

deﬁnitions are ﬁxed and reported. Second, data contamina-

tion risks arise when benchmark material overlaps with resources

used during system development or pretraining, particularly for

large pretrained models, leading to inﬂated and non-generalizable

performance estimates.

These considerations motivate benchmark designs that treat

workload speciﬁcation, dataset provenance, splitting strategy, nor-

malization procedures, and evaluation scripts as ﬁrst-class artifacts.

By doing so, ABWS aligns with determinacy and equivalence as core

benchmarking standards [6], and ensures that its results reﬂect sys-

tem behavior on a well-deﬁned, representative Arabic segmentation

workload rather than incidental properties of a static dataset.

2.4. Our Position

ABWS is designed as a standards-oriented benchmark for Ara-

bic word segmentation. It explicitly speciﬁes evaluation condi-

tions, provides a reproducible evaluation system, and deﬁnes

value functions that (i) distinguish boundary types and error po-

sitions, (ii) enable comparison across rule-based, statistical, and

neural/subword paradigms via boundary harmonization, and (iii)

support downstream-aware analysis where appropriate. In doing so,

ABWS aims to move Arabic segmentation evaluation from dataset-

speciﬁc reporting toward a rigorous, comparable, and reproducible

benchmark engineering practice [6, 7].

3. Formal Speciﬁcation and Evaluation

Conditions

This section describes the architectural design of ABWS (Arabic

Boundary-aware Word Segmentation), a benchmarking framework

engineered to address fundamental limitations in existing Arabic

segmentation evaluation practices. Empirical inspection of segmen-

tation outputs across rule-based, statistical, and neural systems

reveals that segmentation errors are not random, but systematic

and paradigm-dependent

. Subword-based models fragment stems

to minimize vocabulary entropy, neural tokenizers exhibit unstable

boundary placement, and statistical systems bias toward conserva-

tive under-segmentation in clitic-dense constructions. These failure

modes cannot be reliably captured by aggregate word-level metrics

alone.

ABWS is therefore designed not as a static dataset, but as a

uniﬁed benchmarking harness that enables reproducible, paradigm-

agnostic, and diagnostically meaningful evaluation. Following

benchmarking principles established for large-scale computational

systems [

6, 7], ABWS formalizes evaluation around standardized ex-

ecution conditions, a canonical boundary representation layer, and

a multi-dimensional metric suite explicitly aligned with observed

linguistic error behavior.

3.1. Design Principles and Standardization Goals

The design of ABWS is guided by four core principles, each directly

motivated by empirical segmentation pathologies observed across

contemporary systems.

• Boundary-Centric Granularity: Empirical analysis demon-

strates that neural and subword-based systems frequently in-

sert boundaries within morphologically atomic stems (e.g.,

istiqqan → ist + q + q + an), while other systems omit re-

quired clitic boundaries (e.g., fa + li + namad → falinahmad).

AlShuhayeb et al.

ABWS therefore formulates segmentation as a sequence of bi-

nary b oundary decisions at the character level, enabling direct

diagnosis of over- and under-segmentation behavior.

• Paradigm-Agnostic Normalization: Arabic segmentation

systems produce structurally incompatible outputs, ranging

from morpho-syntactic analyses to frequency-driven subword de-

compositions. To enable fair comparison, ABWS introduces a

boundary vector abstraction that projects all outputsregardless

of underlying architectureinto a common mathematical space.

• Reproducibility-First Engineering: To eliminate hidden

variability, all datasets, normalization rules, evaluation scripts,

and system outputs are version-controlled and containerized.

This benchmark-as-code approach ensures that reported results

are deterministic, auditable, and independently veriﬁable.

• Error-Aware Metric Design: Observed segmentation failures

disproportionately aﬀect certain boundary types (e.g., clitics ver-

sus stem-internal splits). ABWS metrics are therefore designed

to distinguish directional error biases and to weight linguistically

salient boundaries according to their downstream impact.

3.2. Standardized Boundary Representation Layer

A central challenge in Arabic segmentation benchmarking is output

incompatibility. For example, rule-based analyzers correctly pre-

serve clitic boundaries (li + al + wu), while subword tokenizers

may split stems (al- + h + ra) or collapse multi-clitic constructions

(wa-lil-junub). Direct comparison of such outputs is ill-deﬁned.

ABWS resolves this incompatibility by projecting all system out-

puts into a Character-Level Boundary Vector, which serves as the

canonical internal representation for evaluation.

Boundary Vector Formalization. Given an input string of n

characters, ABWS deﬁnes a binary boundary vector

B = (b

, b

, . . . , b

n−1

where







1 if a b oundary exists between characters i and i + 1,

0 otherwise.

This representation ensures that all systems are evaluated

against an identical character sequence, eliminating alignment drift

caused by orthographic normalization, Unicode variation, or to-

kenization artifacts. As a result, stem-internal splits, clitic omis-

sions, and boundary displacements are measured uniformly across

paradigms.

3.3. Evaluation Engine and Value Functions

Let S and G denote the system-predicted and gold-standard bound-

ary vectors, respectively. The ABWS evaluation engine computes

a suite of value functions designed to capture complementary

dimensions of segmentation quality revealed by empirical error

analysis:

• Boundary-Level Precision, Recall, and F

: Baseline mea-

sures of boundary detection accuracy, insensitive to token length

but sensitive to boundary placement.

• Word-Level Exact Match (EM): A strict correctness crite-

rion requiring all boundary decisions within a word to match

the gold standard, penalizing even a single stem-internal split or

missed clitic.

• Boundary Distance (BD): A granular disagreement metric

quantifying average per-boundary deviation:

BD(S, G) =

n − 1

n−1

∑

i=1

(S) − b

(G)| .

This measure captures systemic boundary noise observed in

subword tokenizers.

• Directional Bias Ratios: Over-Segmentation Ratio (OSR)

and Under-Segmentation Ratio (USR) explicitly separate stem-

fragmentation errors from clitic-merging errors, reﬂecting the

asymmetric failure modes observed across architectures.

• Critical Boundary Accuracy (CBA): A weighted accuracy

metric prioritizing linguistically salient b oundaries (e.g., pro cl-

itics and enclitics) over stem-internal positions. Fixed weights

clitic

= 2.0, w

stem

= 0.5) ensure determinism while

reﬂecting downstream sensitivity.

• CBA Formulation: The diﬀerential weighting in the Criti-

cal Boundary Accuracy (CBA) metricassigning w = 2.0

to clitic boundaries and w = 0.5 to internal stem bound-

ariesis grounded in the concept of Downstream Impact Analysis

of segmentation errors. In Arabic, clitics (proclitics and encli-

tics) frequently function as essential syntactic markers, including

conjunctions, prep ositions, and pronominal suﬃxes. Failure to

correctly segment a clitic (for example, the preposition bi-) often

produces a catastrophic error in downstream tasks such as Ma-

chine Translation or Dependency Parsing, because it alters the

fundamental grammatical role of the token within the sentence.

Conversely, over-segmentation or under-segmentation within the

stem (for example, incorrectly splitting a root-derived noun)

usually produces a recoverable error, where the semantic core

remains partially identiﬁable by information retrieval systems

or embedding-based models. By assigning a higher penalty to

clitic-related segmentation errors, the CBA metric explicitly pri-

oritizes boundaries that preserve functional linguistic structure.

This weighting scheme ensures that the benchmark emphasizes

architectural precision necessary for syntactic and grammati-

cal integrity rather than treating all boundary errors as equally

consequential lexical variations.

3.4. Statistical Protocol and Robustness

To ensure that reported diﬀerences reﬂect systematic behavior

rather than sampling variance, ABWS adopts a rigorous statistical

protocol:

• Conﬁdence Estimation: 95% conﬁdence intervals estimated

via 1,000-resample bootstrap pro cedures.

• Pairwise Signiﬁcance Testing: McNemars test with Bonfer-

roni correction for multiple comparisons.

• Eﬀect Size Reporting: Cohens h is reported alongside

p-values to distinguish statistical signiﬁcance from practical

impact.

3.5. Implementation and Portability

ABWS is implemented in Python as a modular evaluation li-

brary. To guarantee portability and long-term reproducibility, the

entire benchmarking pipeline is containerized with pinned dependen-

cies and ﬁxed normalization rules. New segmentation systems can

be integrated by supplying raw outputs, which are automatically

normalized and projected into boundary vectors, enabling imme-

diate inclusion in the benchmarking harness without architectural

modiﬁcation.

This design positions ABWS as a stable, extensible, and diagnos-

tically expressive benchmark capable of evolving alongside Arabic

NLP systems while preserving comparability across generations of

models.

While the current evaluation fo cuses on a workload characterized

by high morphological densityspeciﬁcally Classical Arabic texts such

as Shari al-Islmthe ABWS framework is architecturally designed to

be extensible to Arabic dialects. The core strength of the benchmark

lies in its Canonical Boundary Vector (CBV) abstraction, which

decouples linguistic speciﬁcities from the technical evaluation har-

ness. In dialectal Arabic, where segmentation challenges often arise

from phonological fusion or elision, the CBV maintains its utility by

treating segmentation as a series of vocabulary-independent binary

decisions at the character level. Consequently, adapting ABWS to

various dialects only requires redeﬁning the ’Gold Vector’ to align

with the speciﬁc morphological conventions of a given dialect (e.g.,

handling the aspectual preﬁx ’bi-’ in Levantine or negation parti-

cles in Maghrebi). This ﬂexibility ensures that ABWS remains a

paradigm-agnostic system capable of evaluating model performance

across the full sp ectrum of the Arabic linguistic continuum without

necessitating changes to its underlying mathematical or procedural

framework.

4. Experimental Results and Performance

Analysis

The objective of this evaluation is to provide a diagnostic breakdown

of Arabic word segmentation quality beyond aggregate accuracy

scores. All reported results are computed using the canonical

boundary vector representation deﬁned by ABWS, ensuring strictly

comparable (apples-to-apples) evaluation across heterogeneous seg-

mentation paradigms, including rule-based, statistical, and neural

systems. In addition to quantitative metrics, we incorporate linguis-

tically grounded error inspection to validate that ABWS diagnostics

capture real and systematic segmentation pathologies.

4.1. Comparative Analysis of Word-Level Accuracy

Table 1 reports Word-Level Exact Match (EM) accuracy, the most

stringent metric in the ABWS evaluation suite. EM requires a sys-

tem to reproduce the complete gold morphological segmentation of

each word without any boundary insertion, deletion, or displacement

errors.

Table 1. Word-level exact match accuracy across paradigms

(N = 212,873).

Paradigm System Accuracy

Rule-based CAMeL Tools 0.817

Rule-based ALP 0.790

Statistical Farasa 0.810

Neural / Subword BERT-based 0.460

Neural / Subword SelfSeg 0.163

Neural / Subword mBART 0.122

Neural / Subword BPE 0.102

The results reveal a pronounced performance hierarchy. Rule-

based systems achieve the highest word-level reliability, followed by

statistical models, while neural and subword-based tokenizers ex-

hibit a substantial degradation in exact match accuracy. Crucially,

this degradation is explained by structural mismatches between to-

kenization objectives and Arabic morphology: subword tokenizers

optimized for vocabulary compression frequently fragment morpho-

logically atomic stems (e.g., altahra → al + h + ra in mBART;

istiba → ist + b + a in mBART), while language-agnostic neural

systems may collapse required clitic boundaries (e.g., waad + n +

hu → waadnhu in SelfSeg). Such errors are catastrophic under EM

because even a single stem-internal split or missed clitic boundary

invalidates the entire word segmentation.

4.2. Multi-Dimensional Diagnostic Metrics

To identify the structural sources of segmentation failure, we analyze

boundary-level diagnostics using ABWS metrics in Table 2. Errors

are decomposed into Boundary F

, Boundary Distance (BD), Over-

Segmentation Ratio (OSR), and Under-Segmentation Ratio (USR),

enabling ﬁne-grained characterization of systematic error behavior.

Table 2. Boundary-level diagnostic proﬁles and error distribution.

System Boundary F

BD OSR USR

CAMeL Tools 0.86 0.11 0.08 0.14

Farasa 0.78 0.19 0.15 0.23

BERT-based 0.71 0.27 0.21 0.32

SelfSeg 0.38 0.61 0.55 0.09

BPE 0.32 0.65 0.58 0.07

mBART 0.29 0.68 0.62 0.09

Table 3. Standardized Evaluation Conditions (EC) for ABWS

Benchmark

Parameter Speciﬁcation / Rule

Orthographic Normalization Alef normalization , Ya normaliza-

tion (y, alif maqsura → uniﬁed

form)

Kashida Removal All tatweel characters (U+0640)

stripped before processing

Diacritics (Tashkeel) All short vowels and shadda re-

moved for consistency

Input Format UTF-8 encoded raw text strings

(sentence-level)

Punctuation Handling Preserved in text but excluded

from boundary vector calculation

Tool Versions Farasa (v1.1), Stanza (v1.4),

MADAMIRA (v2.1), CAMeL

Tools (v1.2)

Hardware Environment Ubuntu 22.04 LTS, 32GB RAM,

NVIDIA RTX 3090 (for neural

models)

To ensure a fair and reproducible comparison, all segmentation

systems were evaluated under a uniﬁed set of Evaluation Conditions

(EC) as detailed in Table 3. Since diﬀerent Arabic NLP to ols often

employ internal normalization logic, we enforced a pre-processing

layer that standardizes Alef/Ya characters and removes non-lexical

elements like Kashida and Diacritics. This prevents performance

discrepancies from arising due to orthographic variations rather than

the segmentation logic itself. Furthermore, we provide the exact

versions of each integrated tool to ensure that our results can be

replicated in future studies.

4.3. Proﬁling Systematic Failure Modes

The diagnostic metrics reveal strongly asymmetric error proﬁles

across segmentation paradigms, consistent with direct linguistic

inspection:

AlShuhayeb et al.

• Subword Tokenizers (BPE, mBART): These systems ex-

hibit extreme over-segmentation behavior (OSR > 0.58), fre-

quently inserting boundaries within stems and even within root

material. In the provided examples, mBART splits morpholog-

ically atomic forms such as istiba into ist + b + a, and frag-

ments deﬁnite-article constructions such as al-ahra into al- + h

+ ra. Such boundaries are not linguistically valid morphemes,

but artifacts of vocabulary compression objectives.

• Neural Tokenizers (SelfSeg, BERT-based): These sys-

tems demonstrate unstable boundary behavior. SelfSeg exhibits

a mixed proﬁle dominated by boundary omissions on required

clitic chains (e.g., waad + n + hu → waadnhu, fa + lan + namad

left unsegmented), while also occasionally introducing non-

morphological preﬁx splits (e.g., a + l-ahra). BERT-based

outputs are comparatively stronger than subword tokenizers but

still exhibit boundary drift, including occasional stem-internal

splits and inconsistent handling of aﬃxes (e.g., al-ahr + a

instead of al + ahra).

• Statistical Systems (Farasa): Farasa exhibits a conservative

boundary-decision strategy with elevated USR, particularly in

multi-clitic sequences and function-word attachment. This is vis-

ible in cases where clitic boundaries are merged (e.g., wa + kull

+ hu predicted as wakull + hu) and in reduced granularity for

proclitic chains.

• Rule-based Systems (CAMeL Tools, ALP):

Rule-based

analyzers maintain the most balanced error distribution and

low BD, indicating that residual errors are localized rather

than systemic. They consistently preserve canonical clitic and

article boundaries (e.g., li + al + wu, wa + al + mandb) and

avoid stem fragmentation, aligning with gold morphological

conventions.

4.4. Assessment of High-Salience Boundaries

Critical Boundary Accuracy (CBA) evaluates segmentation perfor-

mance on linguistically salient boundariessuch as proclitics (e.g.,

wa+, fa+, bi+, li+), the deﬁnite article (al+), and enclitics (e.g., +hu,

+hum)that exert disproportionate inﬂuence on downstream tasks.

Table 4 reports CBA scores across systems.

Table 4. Critical Boundary Accuracy (CBA): Performance on

high-impact segments.

System CBA

CAMeL Tools 0.89

Farasa 0.82

BERT-based 0.75

SelfSeg 0.44

BPE 0.41

mBART 0.39

The widening performance gap under CBA conﬁrms that neural

and subword-based systems not only generate more errors overall,

but disprop ortionately fail on boundaries that are most conse-

quential for linguistic interpretation. In the qualitative examples,

failures are concentrated in clitic chains and article attachment

(e.g., fa + al + wjib, li + al + wu, al + masjidayn), where sub-

word tokenizers fragment stems and SelfSeg often collapses required

boundaries.

4.5. Statistical Veriﬁcation and Reproducibility

All observed performance diﬀerences were validated using McNe-

mars test with Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons.

Rule-based systems signiﬁcantly outperform neural and subword-

based approaches (p < 0.001), with large eﬀect sizes (Cohens

h > 0.5).

In accordance with TBSE reproducibility standards, the full

experimental pipelineincluding the 1,000-resample bootstrap proce-

dure used to estimate conﬁdence intervalsis fully containerized. Each

table in this section can be regenerated via a single command within

the ABWS evaluation environment.

4.6. Summary of Benchmarking Insights

The application of ABWS yields three core conclusions:

• Architecture Dictates Boundary Precision: Segmentation

quality is primarily determined by architectural assumptions.

Rule-based systems preserve linguistically valid boundaries and

avoid stem fragmentation, yielding the strongest EM and bound-

ary diagnostics.

• Aggregate Metrics are Insuﬃcient: Word-level accuracy

alone obscures severe paradigm-speciﬁc biases. Boundary-aware

diagnostics are necessary to expose over-segmentation in sub-

word models and boundary omission in language-agnostic neural

tokenizers.

• Standardization Enables Diagnostic Insight: Canonical

boundary projection enables a comprehensive, multi-paradigm

evaluation under controlled conditions and provides explanatory

power by linking numerical scores to concrete linguistic failure

modes.

5. Discussion

The empirical results presented in Section 4 reveal a substantial per-

formance gap between segmentation architectural paradigms when

evaluated on the ABWS representative workload. As shown in Ta-

ble [1], rule-based and hybrid systems such as Farasa (0.81), CAMeL

Tools (0.81), and ALP (0.79) maintain relatively high boundary ﬁ-

delity, reﬂecting their explicit modeling of Arabic morphology. In

contrast, modern neural architectures and subword tokenizers ex-

hibit a catastrophic degradation in performance: BPE (0.102) and

mBART (0.122) fail to capture even basic clitic and stem boundaries,

despite their widespread use in downstream neural pip elines.

The observed performance degradation in neural subword mod-

els, such as mBART and BPE-based architectures, stems from a

fundamental misalignment between computational eﬃciency and

linguistic morphology. Unlike rule-based systems that prioritize mor-

pheme boundaries, subword tokenization algorithms are driven by

information-theoretic compression (e.g., maximizing likelihood or

frequency). Consequently, these models often ignore critical linguis-

tic boundariessuch as the junction between a proclitic (e.g., the

conjunction ’w-’) and a stemif a non-linguistic grouping provides a

more frequent statistical pattern in the training corpus. This ’mech-

anistic’ bias leads to the masking of functional particles, where a

model may treat a preﬁxed word as a single opaque unit rather than

a decomposable structure. Our CBA metric captures this failure by

penalizing these statistically-driven but linguistically-invalid merges,

which are particularly prevalent in the high-density Classical Arabic

workload of our benchmark.

Regarding the composition of the ABWS workload, the in-

clusion of high-density Classical Arabic textsspeciﬁcally legal and

jurisprudential treatises like Shari al-Islmis a deliberate design choice

rather than a limitation. These texts exhibit a signiﬁcantly higher

morphological density and a more complex clitic-stacking behavior

compared to modern news or technical documents. By evaluating

systems on this corpus, ABWS functions as a rigorous ’stress-test’

for segmentation models. We argue that a system capable of ac-

curately navigating the intricate boundary decisions of Classical

Arabic is inherently more robust and b etter prepared for the lin-

guistic variations of Modern Standard Arabic (MSA). Thus, this

workload serves as a high-water mark for evaluating the precision

and diagnostic limits of current Arabic NLP architectures.

5.1. The Failure of Subword Tokenization

The output analysis in Section 4.1 exposes a pronounced reality gap

between subword-based segmentation models and linguistically valid

Arabic morphology. In BPE and mBART, segmentation decisions

are driven primarily by statistical frequency and vocabulary com-

pression rather than morphemic structure. For example, the word

fa-al-wjib (so the obligation) is correctly decomposed by ALP and

Farasa into the clitic-aware sequence [fa, al, wjib]. By contrast,

mBART produces fragmented outputs such as [fal, w, jib], which

do not correspond to any valid morphological units in Arabic.

This behavior conﬁrms that subword-based neural models, de-

spite their apparent ﬂuency in downstream tasks, operate on

a predominantly surface-level representation that lacks structural

awareness of Arabic clitic attachment and stem integrity. From a

benchmarking perspective concerned with traceability and linguis-

tic correctness, these ﬁndings indicate that subword-level metrics

are po or proxies for morphological truth and can substantially

misrepresent actual segmentation quality.

5.2. Robustness to Domain-Speciﬁc Morphology

The evaluated workload is dominated by Classical Arabic jurispru-

dential (Fiqh) terminology, including morphologically dense and

derivationally complex forms such as al-istiba and al-mustaa. Tra-

ditional segmentation systems (Farasa and CAMeL Tools) demon-

strate robustness in this setting due to their reliance on explicit

morphological analyzers and lexicons. These systems consistently

preserve canonical preﬁx, stem, and suﬃx boundaries even in

specialized domains.

Neural models, however, exhibit marked performance degra-

dation. The BERT-based segmenter achieves moderate overall

accuracy (0.46) but still struggles with complex preﬁx–suﬃx com-

binations. For instance, forms such as wa-al-mandb are segmented

as [wal-man, db], indicating partial boundary drift and loss of mor-

phemic coherence. This behavior suggests a high evaluation risk

when deploying neural segmentation models in specialized or low-

frequency domains, where memorized subword statistics fail to

generalize underlying morphological rules.

5.3. Impact on Downstream Tasks

To address the correlation between ABWS metrics and downstream

NLP performance, we conducted a pilot study focusing on Part-

of-Speech (POS) tagging—a critical downstream task sensitive to

segmentation quality. Our experiments, involving multiple archi-

tectures (including BiLSTM and Stanza), demonstrate a strong

positive correlation (ρ > 0.88) between Critical Boundary Accu-

racy (CBA) and tagging macro-F1 scores. Speciﬁcally, we observed

that errors identiﬁed by ABWS as ‘Under-segmentation of Procli-

tics’ (high USR) lead to a disproportionate drop in POS accuracy

compared to simple stem boundary shifts. For instance, when the

CBA score fell below 0.85, the downstream POS tagger’s ability to

correctly identify functional markers (e.g., particles and conjunc-

tions) degraded by over 12%. These ﬁndings empirically validate

that the diagnostic metrics provided by ABWS are not merely in-

trinsic measures but are reliable predictors of a model’s utility in

complex Arabic NLP pipelines.

5.4. Implications for Standardization and Evaluation

Theory

From a workload characterization perspective, these results strongly

justify the design choices underlying the ABWS framework. Con-

ventional evaluation practices often mask the observed failures by

relying on aggregate metrics (e.g., BLEU or token-level F

) com-

puted over overlapping subwords, thereby conﬂating surface overlap

with linguistic correctness. By enforcing a Canonical Boundary Vec-

tor (CBV) representation, ABWS exposes fundamental limitations

that remain invisible under traditional evaluation regimes.

Speciﬁcally, the results demonstrate that:

• Neural and subword-based segmenters are not yet standard-ready

for high-precision linguistic tasks that require reliable boundary

placement.

• Evaluation equivalence between rule-based and neural systems

is unattainable without a paradigm-agnostic representation and

metric suite, such as those proposed in this work.

In summary, the current reality of Arabic NLP benchmarking

reﬂects a trade-oﬀ between the scalability and ﬂexibility of neural

models and the boundary precision of rule-based systems. For crit-

ical applications such as legal, religious, or scholarly text analysis,

the high error rates observed for SelfSeg (0.163), BPE (0.102), and

mBART (0.122) render these approaches unsuitable in their current

form. These ﬁndings underscore the urgent need for boundary-aware

training objectives and evaluation frameworks in the next generation

of large language models for Arabic.

6. Conclusion and Future Work

In this work, we introduced the Arabic Boundary Word Segmenta-

tion (ABWS) framework, a multi-paradigm benchmark designed to

address the lack of standardization in Arabic morphological evalu-

ation. By formalizing the Canonical Boundary Vector (CBV), we

provided a methodology to evaluate systems ranging from tradi-

tional rule-based analyzers to modern neural subword tokenizers

within a uniﬁed, equivalent evaluation condition (EC).

Our empirical results, based on a representative workload of

212,873 words, reveal a profound "reality gap" in current Arabic

NLP. While rule-based systems like Farasa and Camel achieve high

boundary accuracy (0.81), state-of-the-art neural models and sta-

tistical tokenizers such as mBART (0.122) and BPE (0.102) show

catastrophic failure in capturing linguistically valid boundaries.

This disparity highlights a signiﬁcant evaluation risk : conventional

metrics used in downstream tasks often mask a systemic lack of

morphological awareness in Large Language Models (LLMs).

ABWS contributes to the engineering of evaluation by provid-

ing a containerized, reproducible pipeline that ensures benchmark

traceability. By treating dataset provenance and workload character-

ization as ﬁrst-class artifacts, this benchmark allows for the rigorous

comparison of diverse architectures, ensuring that progress in Arabic

NLP is measured against a ground-truth linguistic standard rather

than surface-level statistical frequency.

While ABWS is speciﬁcally designed for Arabic, its core method-

ological contributions are language-agnostic. The Canonical Bound-

ary Vector (CBV) abstraction provides a general solution for com-

paring outputs from disparate segmentation paradigms (rule-based,

statistical, neural) in any language. The boundary-aware metrics

(e.g., OSR, USR, CBA) are deﬁned at the character level and do not

rely on Arabic-speciﬁc features, making them transferable to other

morphologically rich languages (MRLs) such as Hebrew, Turkish, or

Finnish. However, the empirical ﬁndings reported in this papersuch

as the extreme over-segmentation of subword tokenizersare directly

AlShuhayeb et al.

tied to Arabic’s unique morphological structure (e.g., concatenative

cliticization). While similar phenomena may o ccur in other MRLs,

further experiments are needed to conﬁrm cross-lingual patterns.

Future work will focus on expanding the ABWS workload to

include more diverse dialects and low-resource historical texts. Fur-

thermore, we intend to integrate automated artifact evaluation tools

to further streamline the reproducibility of results across diﬀerent

hardware testb eds. Ultimately, ABWS oﬀers a template for how

complex, multi-layered NLP tasks can be standardized to support

cumulative scientiﬁc progress and reliable real-world deployment.

Ethical Statement

No ethical approval was required for this study, as it did not involve

human or animal subjects.

Funding

This research received no speciﬁc grant from any funding agency in

the public, commercial, or not-for-proﬁt sectors.

Declaration of competing interests

The authors declare that they have no known competing ﬁnan-

cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to

inﬂuence the work reported in this paper.

Data Availability Statements

The data supporting the ﬁndings of this study are openly available

in zenodo at https://zenodo.org/records/18138582 or https://

doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18138582.

Credit authorship contribution statement

Behrouz Minaei-Bidgoli: Sup ervision; Methodology; Validation;

Writing Review & Editing. Huda AlShuhayeb: Conceptualiza-

tion; Methodology; Formal Analysis; Investigation; Visualization;

Writing Original Draft.

References

1. N. Y. Habash, Introduction to Arabic Natural Language

Processing, ser. Synthesis Lectures on Human Language

Technologies. Morgan & Claypo ol Publishers, 2010, doi:

https://doi.org/10.2200/S00277ED1V01Y201008HLT010.

2. R. Zbib et al., “Machine translation of arabic dialects,” in

Proceedings of the 2012 conference of the north american

chapter of the association for computational linguistics:

Human language technologies, 2012, pp. 49–59, doi:

https://doi.org/10.5555/2382029.2382037. [Online]. Available:

https://aclanthology.org/N12-1006/

3. K. Darwish, “Building a shallow arabic morphological analyser

in one day,” in Proceedings of the ACL-02 workshop on

Computational approaches to semitic languages, 2002, doi:

https://doi.org/10.3115/1118637.1118643. [Online]. Available:

https://aclanthology.org/W02-0506/

4. K. Gorman and S. Bedrick, “We need to talk about

standard splits,” in Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting

of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 2019, pp.

2786–2791, doi: https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/P19- 1267.

5. N. Habash and O. Rambow, “Arabic tokenization, part-

of-speech tagging and morphological disambiguation in one

fell swoop,” in Proceedings of the 43rd annual meeting of

the association for computational linguistics (ACL05), 2005,

pp. 573–580, doi: https://doi.org/10.3115/1219840.1219911.

[Online]. Available: https://aclanthology.org/P05-1071/

6. F. Han et al., “Op en source evaluatology: A theoreti-

cal framework for open-source evaluation,” BenchCouncil

Transactions on Benchmarks, Standards and Evalua-

tions, vol. 4, p. 100190, 2024. [Online]. Available:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tbench.2025.100190

7. X. Li, H. Zhou, Q. Li, S. Zhang, and G. Lu, “Aicb:

A benchmark for evaluating the communication subsystem

of LLM training clusters,” BenchCouncil Transactions on

Benchmarks, Standards and Evaluations, vol. 5, p. 100212,

2025, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tbench.2025.100212.

8. J. Xie et al., “COADBench: A benchmark for revealing

the relationship between AI mo dels and clinical outcomes,”

BenchCouncil Transactions on Benchmarks, Standards and

Evaluations, vol. 4, p. 100198, 2025, tBSE paper (uploaded

PDF: S2772485925000110). doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.

tbench.2025.100198.

9. M. Maamouri, A. Bies, T. Buckwalter, and W. Mekki,

“The penn arabic treebank: Building a large-scale an-

notated arabic corpus,” in

NEMLAR Conference on

Arabic Language Resources and Tools, 2004. [Online].

Available: https://www.marefa.org/images/e/e8/The_penn_

arabic_treebank_Building_a_large-scale_ an_ %281%29.pdf

10. R. Roth, O. Rambow, N. Habash, M. Diab, and

C. Rudin, “Arabic morphological tagging, diacritiza-

tion, and lemmatization using lexeme models and feature

ranking,” in Proceedings of ACL-08: HLT, 2008, doi:

https://doi.org/10.3115/1557690.1557721. [Online]. Available:

https://aclanthology.org/P08-2030.pdf

11. M. Boudchiche, A. Mazroui, M. Bebah, A. Lakhouaja,

and A. Boudlal, “Alkhalil morpho sys 2: A robust arabic

morpho-syntactic analyzer,” Journal of King Saud University –

Computer and Information Sciences, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 141–

146, 2017, doi:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jksuci.2016.08.003.

[Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/

article/pii/S131915781630026X

12. W. Zaghouani, “Critical survey of the freely available arabic

corpora,” in Proceedings of LREC, 2014. [Online]. Avail-

able: https://www.researchgate.net/proﬁle/Wajdi- Zaghouani/

publication/263215246_Critical_Survey_of_the_Freely_

Available_Arabic_Corpora/links/0046353a53977808fa000000/

Critical-Survey- of- the- Freely-Available-Arabic-Corpora.pdf

13. A. Abdelali, K. Darwish, N. Durrani, and H. Mubarak,

“Farasa: A fast and furious segmenter for arabic,” in

Proceedings of NAACL-HLT, 2016, doi: https://doi.org/10.

18653/v1/N16-3003

. [Online]. Available: https://aclanthology.

org/N16-3003.pdf

14. R. Sennrich, B. Haddow, and A. Birch, “Neural machine

translation of rare words with subword units,” in Proceedings

of ACL, 2016, pp. 1715–1725, doi: https://doi.org/10.18653/

v1/P16-1162. [Online]. Available: https://aclanthology.org/

P16-1162.pdf

15. T. Kudo and J. Richardson, “Sentencepiece: A simple and

language independent subword tokenizer and detokenizer for

neural text processing,” in Proceedings of EMNLP, 2018,

doi: https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/D18-2012. [Online]. Avail-

able: https://aclanthology.org/anthology-ﬁles/anthology-ﬁles/

pdf/D/D18/D18-2.p df#page=78

16. J. Devlin, M.-W. Chang, K. Lee, and K. Toutanova,

“BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for

language understanding,” in Proceedings of NAACL-HLT, 2019,

doi: https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/N19-1423. [Online]. Available:

https://aclanthology.org/N19-1423.pdf

17. W. Antoun, F. Baly, and H. Hajj, “AraELECTRA: Pre-training

text discriminators for arabic language understanding,” in

Proceedings of WANLP, 2020. [Online]. Available: https:

//aclanthology.org/2021.wanlp-1.20.pdf

18. M. Abdul-Mageed, A. Elmadany, and E. M. B. Nagoudi,

“ARBERT & MARBERT: Deep bidirectional transformers for

arabic,” in Proceedings of ACL-IJCNLP, 2021, doi: https:

//doi.org/10.18653/v1/2021.acl-long.551. [Online]. Available:

https://aclanthology.org/2021.acl-long.551.pdf

19. N. Zalmout and N. Habash, “Joint diacritization, lemmatization,

normalization, and ﬁne-grained morphological tagging,” in

Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for

Computational Linguistics, 2020, pp. 8297–8307, doi: https:

//doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.736. [Online]. Available:

https://aclanthology.org/2020.acl-main.736/

20. N. Habash and F. Sadat, “Arabic preprocessing schemes for

statistical machine translation,” in Proceedings of NAACL-HLT,

2006, pp. 49–52. [Online]. Available: https://aclanthology.org/

N06-2013.pdf

21. K. Darwish and D. W. Oard, “Term selection for searching

printed arabic,” in Proceedings of SIGIR, 2003, doi:

https://doi.org/10.1145/564376.564423. [Online]. Available:

https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/564376.564423

22. Y. Wu et al., “Google’s neural machine translation

system: Bridging the gap between human and machine

translation,” in arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.08144, 2016, doi:

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1609.08144. [Online]. Available:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308646556_Google’

s_Neural_Machine_Translation_System_Bridging_the_

Gap_between_Human_and_Machine_Translation

23. A. Wang et al., “GLUE: A multi-task benchmark and

analysis platform for natural language understanding,” in

Proceedings of EMNLP Workshop, 2018, doi: https://

doi.org/10.18653/v1/W18-5446. [Online]. Available: https:

//aclanthology.org/W18-5446.pdf

24. ——, “SuperGLUE: A stickier benchmark for general-purpose

language understanding systems,” in Proceedings of NeurIPS,

2019, doi: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1905.00537. [On-

line]. Available: https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_ﬁles/

paper/2019/ﬁle/4496bf24afe7fab6f046bf4923da8de6-Paper.p df

BenchCouncil Transactions on Benchmarks, Standards and

Evaluations, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.66834/5s84yp08

Full Length Articles

FULL LENGTH ARTICLES

TraceRTL: Agile Performance Evaluation for

Microarchitecture Exploration

Zifei Zhang ,

1,2

Yinan Xu ,

Kaichen Gong ,

Sa Wang ,

1,2

Dan Tang

1,3

and Yungang Bao

1,2,∗

State Key Lab of Processors, Institute of Computing Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, 100190, Beijing, China,

University of

Chinese Academy of Sciences, 100190, Beijing, China,

Beijing Institute of Open Source Chip, 100080, Beijing, China and

School of

Information Science and Technology, ShanghaiTech University, 200000, Shanghai, China

∗

Corresponding author. baoyg@ict.ac.cn

Received on 2 February 2026; Accepted on 29 March 2026

Abstract

While agile chip development methodologies have accelerated RTL design and simulation, performance evaluation re-

mains constrained by challenges: (1) limited benchmark availability due to incomplete peripheral/software simulation

environments or unavailable source code; (2) ineﬃcient feature prototyping caused by the tight coupling between func-

tional correctness and performance evaluation, particularly for large-scale, error-prone microarchitectures. To address

these challenges, we propose TraceRTL, an agile, trace-driven performance evaluation methodology that decouples the

functional and performance components of CPU RTL designs. It introduces three contributions to the benchmarking com-

munity: (1) a trace-driven exploration framework that bypasses full functional correctness while preserving performance

behavior and supports replaying workload traces on RTL designs; (2) a quantitative analysis and mitigation methodology

to identify and reduce trace-driven performance discrepancies; (3) a trace transformation technique, TraceBridge, that

converts benchmark traces between diﬀerent formats and instruction sets. Using TraceRTL, we have developed the ﬁrst

trace-driven RTL CPU derived from XiangShan, a high-performance out-of-order RISC-V processor. TraceRTL achieves

performance accuracy of 99.87% and 99.86% on SPECint2017 and SPECfp2017, respectively. With TraceBridge, we

evaluate x86 Google workload traces on a RISC-V RTL CPU and reveal distinct memory-bound behavior.

Key words: Trace-driven simulation, Performance evaluation, Cross ISA benchmarking

1. Introduction

Performance has always been a central consideration in CPU

development. As Moore’s Law slows and application demands

diversify, achieving further performance improvements has be-

come increasingly challenging. This highlights the imp ortance

of microarchitecture exploration methodologies. A key question

is: given a baseline CPU design, how can we eﬃciently quantify

the performance impact of a prop osed hardware feature using

representative benchmarks?

Among available evaluation methods for assessing CPU

design changes using diverse benchmarks, the most faithful

approach is to use the register-transfer level (RTL) implementa-

tion. As the deﬁnitive description of the microarchitecture, RTL

is the most reliable basis for assessing CPU microarchitecture

designs. Ultimately, any proposed feature must be implemented

and evaluated in RTL to determine its true performance impact.

However, since the RTL development process is time-

consuming, the computer architecture community has adopted

more eﬃcient approaches to accelerate early-stage exploration

before implementing a proposed feature in RTL. As shown in

Fig. 1(a), software-based architectural simulators [1–8] model

low-level hardware components using high-level languages and

abstractions, enabling fast simulation and rapid design itera-

tion. Despite their high productivity in early-stage exploration,

the last mile remains unavoidable: performance must still be re-

evaluated at the RTL level after initial simulator studies, since

the additional modeling layer inevitably introduces discrep-

ancies that require substantial engineering eﬀorts and costly

calibration with the actual implementation [9].

Another fundamental yet often overlooked challenge is the

benchmarking asymmetry across the development workﬂow.

While software simulators [5, 6, 8, 10] widely adopt trace-driven

methodologies to execute diverse benchmarks in trace format,

RTL models lack the capability to replay traces and faces lim-

ited benchmarks due to immature simulation environments.

The benchmarking gap prevents a consistent and continuous

evaluation ﬂow from early-stage modeling to ﬁnal hardware

implementation.

Z. Zhang et al.

Trace-DrivenExecution-Driven

RTL

Software

Execution Model

Platform

• Rocket Chip Generator (2016)

• FireSim (2018)

• BOOM-Explorer (2021)

• XiangShan (2022)

• SimpleScalar (1997)

• GEMS (2005)

• M5 (2006)

• gem5 (2011)

• Sniper (2011)

• ZSim (2013)

• ChampSim (2022)

• Calipers (2022)

TRACERTL

(This Work)

(a) Approaches to microarchitecture exploration.

Workload

Preparation

RTL

Implementation

Agile

Performance

Evaluation

Functional

Correctness

Performance

Evaluation

TRACERTL

Current Workflow

(b) Current and TraceRTL performance evaluation workﬂows.

Figure 1. Microarchitecture exploration methods and workﬂows.

Recent advancements in RTL design and simulation oﬀer

strong potential for a seamless, progressive reﬁnement work-

ﬂow from early-stage exploration to the last mile. On the design

side, high-level hardware construction languages [11–13] enable

parameterized and reusable comp onents, allowing rapid imple-

mentation and iteration of new microarchitectural ideas. On

the evaluation side, eﬃcient RTL simulation methods [14–18],

especially FPGAs and emulators [19–22], have signiﬁcantly ac-

celerated large-scale RTL simulation. These capabilities have

already been demonstrated in several open-source, industrial-

competitive CPUs [23–27], which provide realistic and accessi-

ble microarchitecture research platforms [28–32]. For example,

it takes less than 200 minutes and approximately 300 lines of

modiﬁed Chisel code to implement an instruction scheduler pol-

icy PUBS [33] on the XiangShan, a high-performance RISC-V

CPU achieving >15 SPECint2006/GHz [26, 34].

These trends motivate us to adapt proven exploration tech-

niques from simulators directly to RTL, aiming to inherit the

agile workﬂow of simulator-based exploration while enabling

a seamless integration into RTL for last-mile evaluation.

To realize this opportunity, we propose TraceRTL, an

RTL-based performance evaluation methodology that derives

a trace-driven RTL model from an existing execution-driven

RTL implementation. As illustrated in Fig. 1(a), TraceRTL

reuses open-source, silicon-validated RTL designs as a solid

foundation for faithful microarchitecture exploration. It drives

performance-critical modules with pre-generated traces, en-

abling simulator-like agility for early-stage exploration on RTL.

By deriving the trace-driven model directly from RTL, it

inherently avoids costly last-mile calibration and preserves

performance ﬁdelity for evaluation of the proposed feature.

One key motivation behind TraceRTL is to overcome the

execution-driven nature of current RTL designs. As illustrated

by the white b oxes in Fig. 1(b), the modiﬁed CPU must ﬁrst

pass full functional veriﬁcation before any performance evalu-

ation can be conducted. This tight coupling forces every RTL

design modiﬁcation to undergo complete implementation, veri-

ﬁcation, and lengthy simulation, even when the modiﬁcation

is unrelated to performance. For example, evaluating opti-

mizations for virtualized, two-stage address translation requires

implementing complex privileged operations to guarantee cor-

rect functionality, whose functional details, however, do not

aﬀect performance.

With TraceRTL, this strict dependency b etween functional

correctness and performance evaluation is eliminated. As high-

lighted in Fig. 1(b), TraceRTL enables agile performance

evaluation without ﬁrst implementing or verifying unrelated

functional details. Additionally, it accepts trace inputs from

a broader range of real-world applications, including those

with unavailable source code, diﬀerent ISAs, or p eripheral de-

pendencies [10, 35–37], without requiring porting to an RTL

simulation. To realize these capabilities, however, we need to

address three key challenges.

1) Feature prototyping: Can we develop a trace-driven

RTL CPU with minimal modiﬁcations to the existing

execution-driven microarchitecture while preserving perfor-

mance accuracy? Our key insight is that hardware module

interfaces can be categorized into functional interfaces, which

determine what each instruction computes and where exe-

cution proceeds next, and performance-sensitive interfaces,

which determine how eﬃciently the instruction stream is re-

alized. Based on this distinction, TraceRTL selectively takes

over key interfaces to decouple the functional model while

preserving performance behaviors using externally supplied

traces. This preserves cycle-accurate performance accuracy

while eliminating the complexity of managing full functional

correctness.

2) Performance accuracy: Can we mitigate the perfor-

mance discrepancies introduced by trace-driven simulation?

Conventional trace-driven simulation often suﬀers from ﬁdelity

loss due to the lack of necessary information to replicate

execution-driven behaviors. We observe that these information

gaps stem from two primary sources: intentional abstraction

and dynamic omission. We quantitatively analyze the perfor-

mance impact of these missing comp onents, revealing their es-

sential role for ﬁdelity. TraceRTL proposes a dynamic informa-

tion reconstruction mechanism that synthetically reconstructs

missing data, achieving high performance accuracy.

3) Broader workloads: Can we bridge the semantic gap

across diverse trace formats and ISAs? Industrial workloads

are valuable for microarchitecture exploration, but the scarcity

of RISC-V workloads necessitates cross-ISA transformation to

generate benchmark traces. This transformation is performed

only once during trace preparation. However, diﬀerences in

trace formats and ISAs hinder the direct execution of publicly

available traces on RTL CPU models. Since trace-driven simu-

lation relaxes the need for full functional correctness, TraceRTL

introduces TraceBridge, a trace transformation technique that

leverages instruction and register mapping to enable the replay

of traces from diﬀerent formats and ISAs.

To demonstrate the feasibility of TraceRTL, we develop

a trace-driven RTL model derived from XiangShan [26, 38].

It achieves performance accuracy of 99.87% and 99.86% on

SPECint2017 and SPECfp2017, respectively, reducing perfor-

mance discrepancies by 10.31× and 29.21× compared to a

calibrated XS-gem5 model. By leveraging TraceBridge, we

evaluate x86-based Google workload traces [36] on Xiang-

Shan, and reveal distinct memory-bound behavior compared

to SPECint2017.

TraceRTL expands the possibilities for microarchitecture

research by supporting both RTL-based exploration and seam-

less integration with simulator-based workﬂows. By preserving

a simulator-like, trace-driven environment for workloads and

simulation, it eﬀectively bridges early-stage exploration on

simulators and last-mile RTL evaluation.

To summarize, this paper makes the following contribu-

tions.

• We propose TraceRTL, bringing trace-driven simulation to

RTL CPUs for agile microarchitecture exploration.

TraceRTL: Agile Performance Evaluation

• We quantify the sources of performance discrepancies and

implement dynamic information reconstruction to achieve

high performance accuracy.

• We propose TraceBridge, which enhances trace compatibil-

ity to expand the sources of benchmark workloads.

• We demonstrate TraceRTL by using x86 workload traces

collected from Google warehouse-scale computers for per-

formance evaluation of XiangShan, a RISC-V CPU.

2. Background

2.1. Out-of-Order Microarchitecture

Modern CPUs improve performance primarily by exploiting

parallelism and speculation. The front-end speculatively fetches

instructions using branch prediction, while the back-end de-

codes, schedules, and issues them to execution units for

computation and to memory subsystem for data access.

The eﬃciency of this pipeline depends on several critical

microarchitectural components. Branch prediction and instruc-

tion fetching determine the instruction supply rate. Execution

pipelines and scheduling queues aﬀect throughput. The mem-

ory hierarchy bridges the large speed gap between CPU and

DRAM by caching frequently used data. The memory manage-

ment unit (MMU) accelerates address translation by caching

recently used address mappings near the CPU.

2.2. Exploration on RTL

While RTL models oﬀer higher accuracy for design space explo-

ration, directly evaluating performance on RTL presents several

challenges, including the inﬂexibility of traditional hardware

description languages, slow simulation speeds, and the lack of

open-source RTL processors. Recent eﬀorts have focused on

these issues.

Flexibility. Many emerging high-level hardware descrip-

tion languages [12, 13, 39] oﬀer enhanced expressiveness and

parameterization that accelerate the development of micro-

architectures . New hardware design methodologies [11] are also

proposed to further improve design modularity.

Simulation Speed. Novel RTL simulation techniques

have been proposed to accelerate software-based [14–16] or

hardware-based [19, 21, 22] simulation of RTL designs.

Additionally, sampling-based methods [40–42] estimate full-

program performance by aggregating results from several rep-

resentative program segments.

Open-Source RTL Processors. With the rapid growth of

the RISC-V open-source community, a number of RTL pro-

cessors have emerged, including in-order designs [43, 44] and

out-of-order designs such as BOOM [23–25], XuanTie-910 [27],

and XiangShan [26]. These designs provide accessible and re-

alistic platforms for microarchitecture research, enabling agile

exploration directly on RTL.

2.3. Simulation Methodologies

In computer architecture research, performance evaluation

of novel designs predominantly relies on two core method-

ologies: execution-driven and trace-driven simulations. These

approaches fundamentally diﬀer in how they provide program

stimuli to performance models, leading to distinct trade-oﬀs

between ﬁdelity, ﬂexibility , and simulation speed.

The execution-driven methodology emulates the behavior of

real CPUs within the performance model, such as fetching, de-

coding, scheduling and executing instructions. This approach

is inherent to RTL models [23–26, 43] and is also implemented

in many software simulators [1–4]. By coupling functional ex-

ecution with performance mo deling, this approach captures

microarchitecture-dependent dynamic behaviors, such as spec-

ulative execution and wrong-path eﬀects, thereby oﬀering high

ﬁdelity. However, this accuracy comes at the cost of signiﬁcant

complexity, increased error-proneness, and reduced simulation

speed.

In contrast, the trace-driven methodology decouples the

functional model from the performance model by replaying the

pre-generated traces of instructions including architectural in-

formation such as instruction semantics, instruction addresses,

memory accesses, and branch outcomes [5, 6, 8, 10, 45]. These

traces are often generated using instrumentation tools like

Pin [46], DynamoRIO [47], and Valgrind [48], or obtained

from public pre-generated traces [10, 35, 36]. This decoupling

aﬀords higher ﬂexibility, enabling researchers to focus on mi-

croarchitectural optimization. However, this ﬂexibility often

comes at the cost of reduced ﬁdelity, as traces lack dynamic

microarchitecture-dependent information.

3. Challenge

Agile performance evaluation requires rapid feature prototyp-

ing, support for extensive workloads, and fast simulation. To

meet these goals at the RTL level, trace-driven simulation oﬀers

a promising approach by decoupling performance and func-

tional models and supporting trace-based workloads. However,

integrating trace-driven simulation into existing execution-

driven CPU RTL models introduces non-trivial challenges.

Publicly available traces often vary in trace format, lack in-

formation such as instruction encodings, and are sometimes

generated from diﬀerent instruction sets.

3.1. Trace-driven RTL Integration

Transforming a complex execution-driven CPU RTL model

into a trace-driven implementation presents unique challenges

compared to building an RTL model from scratch or driving

individual RTL modules indep endently. In addition to supply-

ing stimuli to existing RTL modules, a trace-driven model must

precisely control the instruction ﬂow based on external traces

while maintaining the original performance behavior.

3.2. Trace-driven Performance Discrepancies

Trace-driven simulation inherently suﬀers from ﬁdelity loss due

to the lack of necessary information. This gap stems from two

primary sources: intentional abstraction and dynamic infor-

mation omission. First, to balance conﬁdentiality and storage

overhead, conventional traces often omit critical details such as

operand values and instruction opcodes. Second, static traces

fail to capture dynamic execution states, such as wrong-path

instructions and page table walks, which only emerge during

runtime. The absence of these microarchitectural side eﬀects

prevents the accurate replication of execution-driven behaviors,

potentially leading to signiﬁcant performance discrepancies.

3.3. Trace Compatibility

Trace-driven approaches can bypass the limitations of simu-

lated peripheral environments, thereby enhancing the cover-

age of supported workloads. However, due to conﬁdentiality

constraints, instruction source code is often unavailable for

publicly accessible trace ﬁles [10, 35, 36]. Another scenario

Z. Zhang et al.

involves target applications that require evaluation but have

not been adapted to the target instruction set, rendering direct

assessment infeasible.

Instruction sets share commonalities but also exhibit sig-

niﬁcant diﬀerences, which hinder direct trace porting. For

example, diﬀerences in general-purpose register conventions,

instruction encodings and sizes, PC alignment rules, and the

range of direct branch instructions all impose constraints on

cross-instruction-set trace evaluation. These challenges are par-

ticularly pronounced for RTL models, which typically lack

suﬃcient abstraction capabilities.

4. TraceRTL Design

To enable agile performance evaluation of RTL designs, we

ﬁrst propose a trace-driven simulation methodology at the RTL

level (§ 4.1) while preserving high performance accuracy (§ 4.2).

Building on this, we introduce TraceBridge, a trace transforma-

tion method that enhances compatibility by enabling the replay

of traces from diﬀerent formats and instruction sets (§ 4.3).

4.1. Trace-Driven Microarchitecture Design

We decomp ose the CPU into core components and describe how

each component is driven by the trace. Interfaces, deﬁned asthe

set of I/O signals between modules, can be driven to control

the module’s behavior. By driving the key interfaces with the

information in traces, TraceRTL replaces the functional model

with external traces while maintaining the original performance

behavior. This section describes the design of trace-driven in-

tegration to meet its ob jectives: (1) driving RTL modules with

external instruction traces, (2) enforcing the CPU model to

conform to the trace instruction ﬂow, and (3) identifying and

mitigating performance discrepancies inherent in trace-driven

simulation.

4.1.1. Trace-Driven RTL Modules

Our key insight is that hardware module interfaces can b e

classiﬁed into functional interfaces, which determine what

each instruction computes and where execution proceeds

next (e.g., arithmetic, branching, or exception handling),

and performance-sensitive interfaces, which determine how

eﬃciently the instruction stream is realized (e.g., branch

prediction, cache access, and memory prefetching). Based

on this distinction, we analyze key module behaviors and

drive performance-sensitive modules using external instruction

traces, preserving original performance characteristics without

requiring full functional execution.

Branch predictor. The branch predictor’s p erformance-

critical interfaces primarily include two types: training and

prediction. The predictor is trained on the committed branch

outcomes. Therefore, instructions on the mis-speculated path,

which are ﬂushed from the pipeline, leave no side eﬀects. By

substituting the branch outcomes with trace information, which

includes branch direction and target, we are able to stimulate

the training process. For prediction, the predictor takes the

current program counter (PC) and branch history to gener-

ate the next instruction fetch request. While prediction is at

speculative stage, the PC and history for correct-path instruc-

tions are consistent between execution-driven and trace-driven

simulations.

Instruction fetch. The instruction fetch unit obtains fetch

requests from the branch predictor and retrieves instructions

from the traces. We propose an interval match mechanism to

Branch

Predictor

Instruction

Fetch

Ibp: [0x100, 0x110)

trace instrs:

0x100: add

0x104: add

0x108: jump

0x200: sub

0x204: ...

0x100: add

0x104: add

0x108: jump

pc=0x100

Itrace:[0x100,0x10c)

Backend

TraceReader

Iif: [0x100, 0x10c)

Figure 2. Trace-driven instruction fetch with interval match mechanism.

simulate the fetch bandwidth, as shown in Fig. 2. A fetch re-

quest typically speciﬁes a contiguous instruction interval I

deﬁned by starting and ending addresses. The fetch unit for-

wards the request to TraceReader that extracts a continuous

sequence of trace instructions I

trace

. Instructions in I

, which

are common to both I

and I

trace

, are then sent to subsequent

pipeline stages for execution. When the starting address does

not match the b eginning of the trace, I

is empty, preventing

any instructions from being fetched. Consequently, the impact

of instructions on the mis-predicted path cannot be modeled.

§ 4.2.1 presents a reﬁned design to address this limitation.

Out-of-order backend. The backend relies on instruction

encodings to stimulate decoding, register renaming, dynamic

scheduling and execution. These encodings are directly supplied

from the trace. Alternatively, a more aggressive approach is to

provide the results of the decoding directly to drive renaming

and scheduling, although this is beyond the scope of this work.

Particular units like the FDivSqrt operation may need optional

data for accurate execution latency.

Cache hierarchy. Cache behavior is mainly inﬂuenced by

access addresses. Instruction addresses are derived from fetch

requests generated by the branch predictor. Data addresses, on

the other hand, are dynamically calculated from the op erands,

which are invalid in trace-driven simulation. Therefore, memory

access addresses should be included in traces to model mem-

ory behavior. Special mo dules like the indirect memory access

prefetcher need extra information.

Memory management unit. The virtual-to-physical ad-

dress translation and page-table walk require in-memory page

table entries (PTEs) that are typically absent in traces [49]. We

employ a dynamic page table generation approach: For each in-

struction in the trace, we traverse the page tables using its

virtual address. If a required PTE is invalid, a new page is

allocated, and the corresponding PTE is initialized. This pro-

cess continues recursively until reaching the leaf page, which is

initialized with the physical address in traces.

4.1.2. Trace-Control led Instruction Flow

TraceRTL controls the instruction ﬂow by managing branch in-

structions, interrupts, and exceptions, while ensuring processor

compliance by instruction stream correctness checks.

Branch instruction. We replace the branch execution

unit’s outcomes with target and conditional result recorded in

the trace to control the programs’ instruction ﬂow.

Exception and interrupt. Traps, including exceptions like

page faults and interrupts like timer interrupts, may be trig-

gered by programs, devices, and operating system. Traps aﬀect

control ﬂow and pipeline redirection, as illustrated in Fig. 3(a).

These are intercepted and re-injected according to the trace.

Speciﬁcally, trace-recorded exceptions are triggered as illegal

instructions, redirecting to the target in trace, as illustrated

in Fig. 3(b). This design ensures that exceptions are preserved

without relying on full functional execution.

TraceRTL: Agile Performance Evaluation

Table 1. Key CPU module behaviors and their corresponding trace-driven stimuli in TraceRTL.

Module Key Behavior Trace-Driven Stimulus

Branch Predictor

Prediction uses PC and history; Training uses

committed branch outcomes.

Use current PC and history for prediction; Use

branch outcomes from trace for training.

Instruction Fetch

Fetch request deﬁnes instruction interval;

Wrong-path instructions.

Apply interval match mechanism to simulate fetch

bandwidth; Generate wrong paths on mismatch.

Instruction Execution Decode, rename, schedule, and execution.

Use instruction enco ding and optional operand

from trace.

Instruction Flow

Branch instruction outcome; Exception and in-

terrupt redirect the pip eline.

Intercept branch outcomes/exception generation;

Support redirect; Flow check.

Cache Hierarchy Access cache by addresses.

Memory address from trace; Instruction address

from branch predictor; Optional data from trace.

MMU

Virtual-to-physical address translation; Access

memory for page table entries.

Construct page table according to the address

from trace.

Branch

Predictor

Instruction

Fetch

Decode MemoryUnit

Reorder

Buffer

Peripherals

Interrupt

Redirect to Exception Handler

Native Exceptions

(a) Native exceptions and interrupt triggered by the CPU

pipeline and p eripherals.

Branch

Predictor

Instruction

Fetch

Decode MemoryUnit

Reorder

Buffer

Exceptions in Trace

Redirect to Target in Trace

(b) Intercept the native exceptions and trigger trace

exceptions as illegal instruction.

Figure 3. Exception and interrupt management in TraceRTL.

Instruction stream check. A fundamental requirement of

trace-driven simulation is that the performance model must be

guided by the trace, a key aspect of which is to ensure its exe-

cution adheres to the provided instruction stream. We capture

the processor’s actual instruction stream through committed

instructions and compare it against the trace. The diﬀerences

in the streams indicate implementation ﬂaws in the RTL model

itself or trace-driven framework.

4.1.3. Overall

In summary, TraceRTL provides a general and adaptable

framework for trace-driven RTL performance evaluation. It is

designed to evolve naturally with RTL designs, require minimal

eﬀort across microarchitectural iterations, remain applicable

across diverse microarchitectures, and ﬂexibly support various

performance optimizations.

Extending TraceRTL to new architectures. We sum-

marize the trace-driven transformation methodology in Table 1.

TraceRTL employs an interface-based modiﬁcation strategy

that reduces mo diﬁcation overhead while accommodating vari-

ations in module design. The processor module partitioning

methodology is universal across diﬀerent microarchitectures,

making TraceRTL a reusable and microarchitecture-agnostic

framework for RTL performance evaluation. The speciﬁc modi-

ﬁcations may vary depending on processor-speciﬁc designs. For

instruction fetch, for instance, in-order processors commonly

fetch one or two instructions per cycle, which does not require

the interval match described in § 4.1.1. In contrast, some high-

performance processors may fetch instructions spanning two

intervals per cycle, thus necessitating two interval-match op-

erations. For CPU-driven accelerators, such as matrix units,

the necessary execution information can also be recorded into

trace instructions and dispatched accordingly.

Applicability for microarchitecture features. TraceRTL

is particularly advantageous for evaluating functionally com-

plex yet performance-critical features (§ 7.2). Beyond function-

ality, it captures ﬁne-grained timing eﬀects that are diﬃcult

to model accurately at higher abstraction levels. For exam-

ple, variations in microarchitectural timing may critically aﬀect

the overall performance (§7.4). It can also evaluate microar-

chitectural optimizations in the same way as conventional

trace-driven simulators (e.g., branch prediction, prefetching, re-

placement, memory dependence prediction). With additional

trace information, TraceRTL can be extended to model ad-

vanced optimizations, such as value prediction (with execu-

tion results) and indirect memory prefetching (with memory

values).

4.2. Trace-driven Performance Discrepancy

Mitigation

To achieve high accuracy, trace-driven simulation should strive

to mimic the behaviors of execution-driven simulation. This

section details our methodology for bridging this gap by en-

hancing trace-driven simulation of the frontend fetch unit

through wrong-path simulation, reﬁning execution latency

via operand and opcode provisioning, and maintaining MMU

ﬁdelity through dynamic page table construction.

4.2.1. Fetch: Wrong-Path Simulation

Out-of-order processors may execute instructions that are later

discarded due to events like branch mispredictions. These in-

structions, although executed, are ﬂushed by pipeline redirect

operations, preventing them from aﬀecting the architectural

state of the CPU, such as the register ﬁle or memory.

Wrong-path instructions’ performance impact, particu-

larly on the cache hierarchy, cannot be ignored. The impact

on the cache can be categorized into prefetching and p ollu-

tion, leading to positive and negative eﬀects. Fig. 4 presents a

code example divided into three sections: (1) Code1, executed

unconditionally before the branch; (2) Code2, located within

one branch; and (3) Code3/Code4, placed outside the branch’s

inﬂuence, further categorized into the proximate Code3 and

Z. Zhang et al.

the distant Co de4. Up on a mispredicted branch, Code2 is exe-

cuted, and if its execution is swift, Code3 may follow. Once the

branch is resolved, speculatively fetched instructions of Code2

and Code3 are discarded, with Co de2 potentially polluting the

cache and Code3 prefetching the cache.

*b = 1; /* Code1 */

a = *b;

if (a == 0)

 a = *c;/* Code2 */

a = *d; /* Code3 */

a = *e; /* Code4 */

Figure 4. Code example demonstrating wrong-path instruction

generation.

We statistically analyze the number and addresses of mem-

ory instructions on both correct and wrong paths in the

out-of-order processor XiangShan, focusing on instructions sent

to the load pipeline. These addresses are aligned to cache-

line size. We categorize the address space into three types: (1)

exclusive-arch-path: only accessed by correct path instructions,

(2) exclusive-wrong-path: only accessed by wrong-path instruc-

tions and (3) overlapped: accessed by both paths. As shown

in Fig. 5, we found that most of the address space falls into

type(1) and (3). Therefore, we can tentatively draw a rough

conclusion that prefetching has the predominant inﬂuence.

Figure 5. Percentage of memory interval weighted by load access times

for the SPEC CPU2017. Each bar represents a sub-benchmark, sorted

according to “ExclusiveArchPath”.

Based on the observation, we focus on simulating the

prefetching inﬂuence by taking the instructions at correct path

as wrong-path instructions. The process involves the follow-

ing steps: (1) When a branch misprediction occurs, we check

whether the fetch request’s starting address exists in traces

within a ﬁxed instruction window; (2) If it exists, the instruc-

tions in the trace are sent to subsequent pipeline stages as

wrong-path instructions. The instruction fetch unit is blocked

for simpliﬁcation. These instructions are not discarded from

the traces; (3) Once the branch instruction is resolved and the

pipeline is redirected, the correct fetch request is issued.

4.2.2. Execution: Instruction Opcode Provisioning

Conventional trace-driven simulators often operate with par-

tial instruction encodings. Instruction encoding has two types

of information: instruction opco de for functionality like ADD

and SUB, register indices for instruction dependency and out-

of-order scheduling. Explicit instruction opcodes are frequently

Algorithm 1 Dynamic Page Table Construction

1: procedure Instruction Walk(instList)

2: for inst in instList do

3: if inst’s PC valid then

4: PageWalk(inst.VirtualPC, inst.PhysicalPC)

5: end if

6: if inst’s memory address valid then

7: PageWalk(inst.VirtualAddr, inst.PhysicalAddr)

8: end if

9: end for

10: end pro cedure

11: procedure Page Walk(va, pa)

12: pageBase = PageTableRootAddr

13: for level := 0 to MaxLevel do

14: pteAddr = getPteAddr(va, level, pageBase)

15: pte = readPageTable(pteAddr)

16: if pte not valid then

17: if level == MaxLevel-1 then

18: newPte = genPte(pa) ▷ Leaf page arrived

19: else

20: newPte = genPte(AllocatePage())

21: end if

22: writePageTable(pteAddr, newPte)

23: end if

24: pageBase = pte.ppn << 12

25: end for

26: end pro cedure

abstracted or omitted for conﬁdentiality concerns and software

simulators’ highly abstracted microarchitecture designs. Con-

sequently, instead of providing detailed opcodes, trace instruc-

tions are categorized into coarse-grained functional groups: (1)

control ﬂow (unconditional direct, conditional direct, and in-

direct jumps); (2) memory access (loads and stores); and (3)

computation (integer and ﬂoating-point).

Our work fo cuses on quantifying the performance model-

ing deviations induced by this loss of ﬁne-grained opcodes.

Speciﬁcally, we investigate how substituting precise opcodes

with coarse-grained categories impacts simulation ﬁdelity. This

analysis aims to isolate the impact of op eration abstraction

from other simulation variables, providing a quantitative un-

derstanding of the accuracy trade-oﬀs in abstracted trace

modeling.

4.2.3. Execution: Operand Provisioning

Some operations are implemented in a blocking manner and

their execution cycles are variable depending on the operands,

like division, ﬂoating-point division and square-root. This type

of performance error is always neglected and simulators often

implement them with ﬁxed latency.

Although these instructions are relatively few, their long

execution cycles and low degree of concurrency amplify their

performance impact. To achieve more accurate simulation for

these types of instructions, we record their operands in traces.

4.2.4. MMU: Dynamic Page Table Construction

User-space programs use virtual addresses, which must be

translated to physical addresses by the memory management

unit (MMU) before accessing the cache or main memory. In

the MMU, the virtual address ﬁrst consults the L1 translation

lookaside buﬀer (TLB). If L1 TLB hits, the physical address

TraceRTL: Agile Performance Evaluation

is obtained directly. In case of L1 TLB miss, the virtual ad-

dress will be sent to a larger L2 TLB or hardware page table

walker to traverse the memory-resident page tables to ﬁnd the

physical address corresponding to the virtual address, which

involves multiple memory accesses, especially in hypervisor en-

vironments. Page table caches are used to speed up page table

walks. In summary, the hit rates of TLB and page table cache,

as well as page table walker’s memory latency, are crucial for

MMU-sensitive programs.

To simulate the behavior of MMU and minimize the modi-

ﬁcations on RTL modules, we need to provide a self-consistent

page table for the MMU. However, traces typically contain only

the physical and virtual addresses, but not the page table [49].

Therefore, we employ a dynamic page table generation method,

as illustrated in Algorithm 1. By iterating over each instruction

in the traces and traversing the page tables based on the vir-

tual address, we allocate new page frames and initialize the

invalid corresponding page table entries, until reaching the leaf

page. The leaf entry is then initialized with the corresponding

physical address. After dynamically generating the page table,

when a TLB miss o ccurs, the memory-resident page tables are

traversed.

4.3. Trace Compatibility with TraceBridge

We introduce a trace transformation methodology, Trace-

Bridge, to bridge the incompatibilities in trace formats and

instruction sets. To support trace-driven simulation, the trace

must contain at least three categories of information: (1) pri-

mary instruction type, including branch types, computation,

and memory operations; (2) execution guidance, including PC,

branch target and conditional result, and memory address;

(3) register dependencies to model instruction-level parallelism.

Such information is typically included in the trace format

of dynamic instrumentation tools [49] and publicly available

traces [10, 35, 36], where ﬁne-grained semantic information such

as instruction opcodes are sometimes missing.

TraceBridge retains the key information from the trace,

transforming its format to be compatible with the target model

by reﬁning the execution semantics. However, trace-driven RTL

models pose additional low-level challenges due to their rich

details: (1) instruction correspondence and register seman-

tics; (2) diﬀerence in instruction encoding size and program

counter (PC) alignment constraints; (3) variations in branch

oﬀset ranges.

The primary principle of TraceBridge is to maintain per-

formance semantics consistency. This ensures that the p erfor-

mance characteristics of the original program are reﬂected in

the target architecture. For conﬁdentiality, public traces omit

instruction encodings [10] or provide instruction categories [36].

To address this, we observe that an instruction can encom-

pass multiple performance semantics, which fall into four types:

⟨Load, Computation, Store, Branch⟩. To maintain performance

semantics consistency, we map each individual performance se-

mantic to its corresponding instruction(s) in the target ISA.

A single x86 instruction, which may encompass multiple micro-

operations, is translated into an equivalent sequence of RISC-V

instructions. For instance, the x86 RET instruction is mapped

to two RISC-V instructions (LOAD and JR), and x86 memory

accesses exceeding the width of a single RISC-V instruction are

decomposed into multiple instructions to preserve the access

range. The necessary mapping results in instruction inﬂation,

which is analyzed in § 7.1. In the case of missing opcodes,

compute instructions are mapped to representative types such

as [F]ADD, [F]MUL, and CONVERT due to limited informa-

tion in the traces. For ISAs with ﬂag mechanism, such as x86,

spare registers can be employed to establish inter-instruction

dependencies. Furthermore, special handling for architecturally

signiﬁcant registers, like the return address register, guarantees

the correct correspondence between x86 call/return operations

and their RISC-V counterparts.

PC INSTR

0x100 math

0x101 math

0x105 ret 0x201

0x201 math

0x203 math

0x210 j 0x150

0x150 math fp

0x154 math fp

old PC new PC

0x100 -- 0x100

0x101 -- 0x104

0x105 -- 0x108

-- 0x10C

0x150 -- 0x150

0x154 -- 0x154

0x201 -- 0x200

0x203 -- 0x204

0x210 -- 0x208

PC INSTR

0x100 add

0x104 add

0x108 load

0x10C jr 0x200

0x200 add

0x204 add

0x208 j 0x150

0x150 fadd

0x154 fadd

origin

traces

transform

& PC map

RISC-V

traces

Figure 6. Example of trace transformation, consisting of PC conversion

and instruction enco ding mapping

To resolve diﬀerences in instruction size, PC alignment, and

instruction inﬂation, we reorganize PCs in the traces to conform

to RISC-V requirements. As illustrated in Fig. 6, we collect all

instruction PCs and sequentially reassign new addresses based

on RISC-V encoding size. When a PC gap is detected (e.g.,

from 0x105 to 0x150), the current PC is updated accordingly. A

mapping from original PCs to RISC-V PCs is then constructed,

and branch target addresses are updated using this mapping.

While the x86 ISA supports larger oﬀset ranges for di-

rect branch instructions than RISC-V, we observe that branch

target computation mainly occurs in two modules: the pre-

decoding unit at the fetch stage and the branch execution unit.

By overriding the computation result with the target recorded

in the traces, we eﬀectively support larger branch oﬀset ranges

in the trace-driven RISC-V model.

Overall. TraceBridge provides a methodology to evaluate

the microarchitectural behavior of mature, real-world software

ecosystems (e.g., Google workloads) on an emerging hardware

ecosystem (e.g., RISC-V). Admittedly, TraceBridge is unable

to eliminate all performance discrepancies caused by inher-

ent cross-ISA diﬀerences and missing execution information in

traces, such as instruction semantics and application binary in-

terfaces(ABIs). Furthermore, while the high-level metho dology

is consistent, the speciﬁc rules should adapt for source and tar-

get ISAs. For example, x86 and RISC-V diﬀer in the number of

general-purpose registers. Consequently, when translating to

x86, some registers may map to memory (i.e., register spilling).

It is also constrained by information missing from the trace,

forcing a simpliﬁed instruction remapping, which inevitably

introduces performance errors. However, according to our eval-

uation of missing RISC-V opcodes (§ 7.1), the accuracy is above

99% (0.95% error for SPECint2017) for early-stage performance

exploration.

5. Put It All Together

TraceRTL improves the performance evaluation workﬂow by

optimizing stages such as workload preparation, prototyp-

ing, and performance simulation. As illustrated in Fig. 7,

a typical iterative workﬂow based on TraceRTL is employed

to p erform agile performance evaluation. The workﬂow in-

volves the following steps:

○ Trace Preparation: Program

traces for the benchmarks or target applications are prepared

Z. Zhang et al.

Trace

Preparation

Enhanced

Prototyping

Trace-Driven

Simulation

Functional

Correctness

Execution-

Driven

Simulation

① ②

③ ④

⑤

⑥

Performance

Analysis

Figure 7. Agile p erformance evaluation workﬂow with TraceRTL. The

workﬂow comprises two lo ops: a trace-driven loop

○→

○ and

an execution-driven lo op

○→

○.

for subsequent performance evaluation. Each trace represents

a program segment. Traces can b e generated using a va-

riety of tools, including dynamic instrumentation tools like

Pin [46] and DynamoRIO [47], instruction-level simulators like

QEMU [50] , and publicly available traces such as Google

workload traces [36] and Qualcomm workload traces [35].

TraceRTL can be combined with additional techniques such as

SimPoint [40] to further shorten simulation time, while also

avoiding the overhead and complexity of booting.

○ Proto-

typing: New microarchitectural features can be prototyped

on a RTL model without full implementation, as shown in

§ 7.2.

○ Trace-Driven Simulation: The trace-formatted pro-

gram segments are replayed in trace-driven simulation, yielding

performance results of the CPU model.

○ Performance

Analysis: The performance results and program b ehaviors are

analyzed to identify performance bottlenecks. These insights in-

form subsequent iterations and guide prototype reﬁnement.

○

Functional Correctness: When the design meets expected

performance targets, the eﬀorts invested in prototype devel-

opment can be seamlessly carried over. TraceRTL supports

compile-time mode switching between execution-driven and

trace-driven simulation, enabling smo oth transition to func-

tional validation.

○ Execution-Driven Simulation: Fur-

ther performance analysis and iteration are conducted through

execution-driven.

TraceRTL facilitates an agile and accurate RTL-level mi-

croarchitecture design exploration process. Rather than re-

placing existing architectural simulators, TraceRTL serves as

a complementary and reinforcing component that enhances

RTL performance exploration and bridges the gap between

high-level models and real RTL behavior. It targets a distinct

sweet spot in the accuracy-productivity trade-oﬀ, preserv-

ing the ground-truth RTL model and accepting manageable

maintenance overhead to achieve substantially higher accuracy,

with comparable or potentially lower (Palladium/FPGA) sim-

ulation cost. By enabling direct performance evaluation on

real RTL implementations, TraceRTL empowers architects to

broaden application coverage and identify microarchitectural

bottlenecks that high-level simulators may overlook.

6. Evaluation

We conduct evaluations to address two key questions:

1. Can we mitigate trace-driven simulation’s performance

inaccuracies (§ 6.2)?

2. Does TraceRTL achieve high performance accuracy (§6.3)?

To address these questions, we compare the performance of

the original RTL model, TraceRTL, and the state-of-the-art

simulator gem5 [4].

Table 2. Target system conﬁguration.

Component Description

Branch Predictor

uBTB, BTB, TAGE-SC,

ITTAGE, RAS

Fetch/Decode/Rename Width 8/6/6

RoB/LoadQueue/StoreQueue 160/72/64

Integer/Float Register File 224/192

ALU/FMA/FDivSqrt unit 4/4/2/

Load/Store unit 3/2

L1 ICache 64KB, 4-way, 256-set

L1 DCache 64KB, 8-way, 128-set

L2 Cache 1MB, 8-way, 512-set, 4-bank

L3 Cache 16MB, 16-way, 4096-set, 4-bank

L1 ITLB/DTLB 48-entry, fully-associative

L2 TLB 2048-entry, 8-way, 32-set

DRAM DRAMsim3, 8GB, DDR4-3200

6.1. Experimental Setup

Target System. We evaluate TraceRTL by altering an open-

source high-performance RISC-V processor, XiangShan [26, 38],

into a trace-driven model. TraceRTL introduces low implemen-

tation overhead while preserving RTL ﬁdelity. It reuses the

original RTL and drives existing modules by intercepting in-

puts and outputs. The modiﬁcations consist of three primary

components. First, the simulation environment, implemented

primarily in C++, manages trace ﬁle loading, instruction

stream validation, and page table generation. Second, the

TraceRTL module, written in Chisel, retrieves traces via the

DPI and supplies instructions to the pro cessor. Third, in-

terface connections and execution guidance are applied to

existing processor modules. The ﬁrst two components are

microarchitecture-agnostic, whereas the third requires tighter

coupling with speciﬁc microarchitectural details. Speciﬁcally,

the microarchitecture-speciﬁc modiﬁcations account for fewer

than 450 LOC (lines of code). Nevertheless, the modiﬁcation

methodology remains portable across diverse processor designs.

XiangShan, implemented in Chisel [13], is a tape-out

ready superscalar out-of-order processor. Its latest third-

generation, Kunminghu, achieves a clock frequency of 3GHz

and SPECint2006 score exceeding 15/GHz, demonstrating its

capability as a platform for exploring high performance mi-

croarchitecture designs. We use the default conﬁguration of Xi-

angShan, as shown in Table 2. We take the original XiangShan’s

performance as the ground truth.

gem5 is widely used for CPU microarchitecture exploration

and is often referenced as the ground truth in some simulator

works [8, 51, 52] for its rich details. We use the XS-gem5 [53] as

the baseline, which has been carefully calibrated to XiangShan

through over 1,200 git commits and more than 60,000 lines of

source code additions since July 2022, including XiangShan-

speciﬁc adjustments.

Simulation Speed. XS-gem5 achieves a simulation speed of

around 35kHz. As TraceRTL is directly derived from the orig-

inal RTL model, it inherently shares a comparablesimulation

speed and beneﬁts from hardware-accelerated emulation tools.

The simulation speeds are both around 6.5kHz using Verila-

tor [14] and around 1.4MHz on Cadence Palladium, which is

40× faster than XS-gem5.

Workloads. We use SPEC CPU2006 [54] and SPEC

CPU2017 [55] benchmark suites. We compare the benchmark

TraceRTL: Agile Performance Evaluation

scores between XiangShan, TraceRTL and XS-gem5. The com-

plete execution of SPEC CPU benchmarks takes a very long

time in software simulation. A set of representative program

segments are generated by sampling the SPEC CPU bench-

marks using SimPoint [40]. Each segment consists of 20M

instructions for warm-up and 20M instructions for performance

sampling. To limit simulation time, more than 30% weight

of the program segments are included for each application.

NEMU [56], an instruction-level simulator, is employed to

execute these segments and generate trace ﬁles to feed into

TraceRTL. Both XiangShan and XS-gem5 are functionally veri-

ﬁed against NEMU, guaranteeing they share the same execution

ﬂow.

6.2. Trace-Driven Performance Discrepancies

For the ﬁrst time, we can evaluate the performance impact of

the trace-driven simulation on an accurate high-performance

RTL processor and the eﬀectiveness of measures to mitigate

its performance errors. We quantify the performance errors

arising from wrong-path simulation, memory management unit

behaviors, operand and opcode absence.

Figure 8. Performance errors of TraceRTL w/ and w/o wrong-path sim-

ulation on SPEC CPU2006 and SPEC CPU2017.

6.2.1. Wrong-path Simulation.

We adopt the mechanism detailed in § 4.2.1 to mo del wrong-

path eﬀects. For comparison, we also consider the basic ap-

proach where the instruction fetch halts upon encountering

a mis-prediction, detailed in § 4.1.1. Fig. 8 illustrates SPEC

CPU2006’s and SPEC CPU2017’s performance diﬀerences with

and without simulating wrong-path instructions’ eﬀect, con-

taining the sub-benchmarks whose “w/o WPS” errors are more

than 1%, benchmarks’ overall performance errors and RMSE

(root mean squared error) metric. Although the overall per-

formance impact of neglecting wrong paths is relatively small

(-3.91% and -0.18% for SPECint2006 and SPECfp2006, -2.17%

and 0.14% for SPECint2017 and SPECfp2017), certain bench-

marks, such as 429.mcf and 450.soplex on SPEC CPU2006 and

505.mcf and 557.xz on SPEC CPU2017, exhibited substan-

tial performance degradation. Our results demonstrate that

simulating the impact of wrong-path instructions eﬀectively

mitigates these programs’ performance discrepancies, reduc-

ing the overall performance error to 0.14% for SPECint2006

and 0.13% for SPECint2017. The RMSE of SPECint2006 and

SPECint2017 falls from 9.56% and 4.87% to 1.38% and 2.38%.

6.2.2. Instruction Opcode Provisioning

Figure 9. Performance errors of TraceRTL on SPEC CPU2017 when

omitting computation instruction opcodes.

(a) Branch predictor MPKI.

(b) Data cache MPKI.

Figure 10. BPU and data cache MPKI comparison between TraceRTL

w/ and w/o computation instruction op codes on SPEC CPU2017 b ench-

marks. Each p oint represents one sub-b enchmark.

Coarse-grained opcode abstraction is common in trace-driven

simulators without detailed execution unit modeling, or in

applications that directly provide traces without instruction

encoding. To quantify the performance deviations, we im-

plemented a controlled mapping scheme within the TraceRTL

framework. Speciﬁcally, the diverse array of complex compu-

tational opco des are collapsed into a simpliﬁed set of generic

operations: integer addition/multiplication (ADD/MUL) and

ﬂoating-point addition/multiplication (FADD/FMUL).

The results across the SPEC CPU2017 demonstrate that

the impact of opcode abstraction varies signiﬁcantly b etween

workload types. As shown in Fig. 9, SPECint2017 exhibits

high resilience to coarse-grained semantic mapping, maintain-

ing a negligible average error of 0.95%. In contrast, SPECfp2017

shows a much higher sensitivity, with the average error rising to

5.30% and peaking at 19.29% in 519.lbm. The results suggest

that while coarse-grained opcode traces are suﬃcient for evalu-

ating general-purpose integer architectures, they may introduce

unacceptable ﬁdelity loss for ﬂoating-point heavy workloads.

Despite the divergence, the coarse-grained abstraction ef-

fectively preserves the control-ﬂow and memory-access char-

acteristics of the workloads. As illustrated in Fig. 10, the

MPKI metrics of branch predictor and data cache remain

highly consistent between the abstracted traces and normal

TraceRTL. In summary, coarse-grained opcode abstraction has

limited impact on integer compute-intensive applications, fron-

tend modules (branch prediction and instruction fetch), and

memory-access related research. It is well-suited for studies

where the target workloads or modules have a weak correlation

with ﬂoating-point operations.

6.2.3. Uncertain-latency Operations

To model the execution latency of uncertain-latency opera-

tions, represented by ﬂoating-point division and square root

(FDivSqrt), we adopt the approach that supplies operands, de-

tailed in § 4.2.3. For comparison, we also evaluated a baseline

conﬁguration where the FDivSqrt is replaced with a ﬁxed-

latency dummy unit, with latencies varying based on the

operation type and data width. As shown in Fig. 11, which

Z. Zhang et al.

contains sub-benchmarks whose ”ﬁxed-latency” errors exceed

0.5%, the ﬁxed-latency model resulted in overall performance

errors of -1.65% and -1.22% on SPECfp2006 and SPECfp2017,

respectively, with signiﬁcant deviations for sub-benchmarks

such as gromacs and zeusmp in SPECfp2006, and 521.wrf,

527.cam4, and 544.nab in SPECfp2017. By providing operands,

we are able to improve the accuracy of performance for these

applications.

Figure 11. Performance error of simulating FDivSqrt with operand-

dependent vs. ﬁxed latency on SPECfp2006 and SPECfp2017.

6.2.4. Memory Management Unit

To evaluate the performance impact of the MMU, we employ

the dynamic page table (Dynamic PT) approach detailed in

§ 4.2.4. For comparison, we also simulate an ideal L1 TLB

which always hits and a page table walker with ﬁxed-latency of

15 cycles. As shown in Fig. 12, which contains sub-benchmarks

whose “Ideal L1TLB” errors are more than 3%, the ideal

MMU introduces average performance discrepancies of 6.19%

and 2.35% on SPEC CPU2017 int and fp, with 11 out of 23

benchmarks exp eriencing performance discrepancies exceeding

3%. When simulating a page table walker with ﬁxed memory la-

tency, 4 out of the 23 benchmarks have errors greater than 3%.

In contrast, when simulating the actual MMU behavior, the

overall performance overhead decreases to 0.13% and 0.14% for

SPEC 2017 int and fp, and only 1 out of 23 benchmarks exhibits

a performance error greater than 3%.

Figure 12. Performance error of simulating the MMU using diﬀerent

strategies on SPEC CPU2006 and SPEC CPU2017.

6.3. Overall Performance Accuracy

We evaluate the performance accuracy of TraceRTL and XS-

gem5 on SPEC CPU2006 and SPEC CPU2017, with original

XiangShan as the ground truth, as shown in Fig. 13.

Overall. TraceRTL achieves signiﬁcantly high accuracy in

overall performance. For RMSE metric, TraceRTL achieves

1.45% and 1.00% on SPECint2006 and SPECfp2006, compared

to 9.85% and 19.44% for XS-gem5. Similarly, the RMSE of

SPECint2017 and SPECfp2017 of TraceRTL are 2.38% and

0.67%, compared to 8.02% and 22.53% of XS-gem5.

Sub-benchmarks. TraceRTL exhibits high accuracy at both

the overall and sub-benchmark levels. For XS-gem5, on SPEC

CPU2006, 11 out of 29 sub-benchmarks have errors greater than

10%, and 14 out of 29 have errors greater than 3%. Similarly,

on SPEC CPU2017, 7 out of 23 sub-benchmarks have errors

greater than 10%, and 13 out of 23 have errors greater than

3%. These discrepancies can be attributed to the diversity of

program characteristics, which makes it challenging to perfectly

calibrate. In contrast, by inheriting rich details, TraceRTL

eﬀortlessly achieves high accuracy. TraceRTL achieves perfor-

mance accuracy such that only 1 out of 29 on SPEC CPU2006

and 1 out of 23 on SPEC CPU2017 has an error greater than

3%.

7. Case Studies

In this section, we present case studies to demonstrate how

TraceRTL facilitates agile performance evaluation:

1. Trace Compatibility: Using TraceBridge, we evaluate

x86-based Google workload traces on the RISC-V Xiang-

Shan CPU (§ 7.1).

2. Prototyping: We use TraceRTL to quickly evaluate the

performance impact of adopting a two-stage address trans-

lation MMU (§ 7.2) and a new ﬂoating-point unit(§ 7.3).

3. Performance Sensitivity Accuracy: We compare the

accuracy of performance impact between TraceRTL and

XS-gem5 at frontend, backend and memory (§ 7.4).

7.1. Trace Compatibility: Google Workload Traces

We evaluate datacenter workloads, the x86-based Google work-

load traces [36] from warehouse-scale computer workloads on

the RISC-V high performance processor XiangShan to show the

feasibility of TraceBridge described in § 4.3. Google workload

traces consist of multiple trace groups, each containing many

trace ﬁles. For each group, we select the longest trace and apply

the SimPoint [40] for sampling. Applying SimPoint directly to

the transformed traces can avoid errors caused by instruction

inﬂation.

While TraceBridge maintains semantic consistency, it intro-

duces the overhead of instruction inﬂation. We analyze this

inﬂation across both static and dynamic dimensions, consider-

ing instruction count and size, as shown in Fig. 14. The inﬂation

ratios for static and dynamic instruction counts remain stable

within a narrow range, from 1.09 for arizona to 1.19 for yankee.

The dynamic instruction size, an indicator of instruction cache

pressure, exhibits an inﬂation ratio ranging from 0.95 for ari-

zona to 1.20 for bravo.a, with 9 out of 12 applications staying

within a 10% inﬂation margin.

We provide a Top-down [57] breakdown analysis of per-

formance bottlenecks for both Google workload traces and

SPECint2017, sorted by IPC, as shown in Fig. 15. While only 3

out of 10 SPECint2017 sub-benchmarks exhibit memory-bound

TraceRTL: Agile Performance Evaluation

Figure 13. Performance error of TraceRTL and XS-gem5 on SPEC CPU2006 and SPEC CPU2017, using the execution-driven XiangShan as the baseline.

Figure 14. Instruction inﬂation rate of TraceBridge on Google workload

traces.

Figure 15. Top-down breakdown comparison between Google workload

traces, SPECint2017 , and llama2.c.

over 20%, 8 out of 12 Google workload traces demonstrate

this characteristic, with 6 reaching approximately 40%. These

results highlight memory access as the primary performance

bottleneck, underscoring the importance of memory optimiza-

tion for warehouse-scale computing systems. TraceBridge

introduces dynamic instruction size and count expansion, which

primarily aﬀects front-end and core-bound performance cate-

gories. However, since these two factors account for relatively

small proportions in Go ogle workload traces, TraceBridge has

limited impact through expansion eﬀects. Although coarse-

grained instruction encoding may potentially aﬀect ﬂoating-

point workloads, the analysis in § 6.2.2 shows that it preserves

accurate instruction streams and cache b ehavior. This indi-

cates that the impact on memory-bound and bad-speculation

categories is also minimal.

TraceRTL also streamlines porting workloads by leveraging

the well-developed QEMU. It takes less than 30 minutes to

compile llama2.c [58] and generate program traces by QEMU.

As shown in Fig. 15, these traces are simulated on TraceRTL,

and, unlike Go ogle workload traces and SPECint2017, exhibit

distinct core-bound behaviors.

7.2. Prototyping #1: Memory Management Unit

TraceRTL enables eﬃcient prototyping and performance evalu-

ation of complex microarchitectural modules. As a case study,

we examine two-stage address translation, a key mechanism

for supporting virtual machines through memory virtualization

deﬁned in the RISC-V Hypervisor extension [59].

Evaluating this module is non-trivial due to its reliance

on privileged operations, complex control and status registers

(CSRs), and software-managed page tables. Additionally, its

performance impact is signiﬁcant: address translation may trig-

ger multiple memory accesses to page table. For instance, the

RISC-V Sv39 scheme requires 3 memory accesses, while the

virtualized, two-stage Sv39-Sv39x4 scheme requires up to 15

memory accesses that increase the translation latency.

Figure 16. Performance decrease estimation when adopting two-stage

address translation on SPEC CPU2006.

TraceRTL allows performance evaluation of such designs be-

fore full functional implementation is complete. By (1) directly

Z. Zhang et al.

Figure 17. Performance error of TraceRTL on SPEC CPU2006 under

KVM virtualization.

providing the page table following the two-stage translation

scheme and (2) adding a standalone host page table walker

which performs guest-physical-address to host-physical-address

translation, we enable the MMU to perform the two-stage

Sv39-Sv39x4 scheme, thereby obtaining the performance re-

sults of two-stage address translation. Fig. 16 illustrates the

performance changes of the TraceRTL under normal address

translation and two-stage address translation modes on SPEC

CPU2006. The two-stage address translation results in a per-

formance degradation of 9.99% for SPECint2006 and 5.27% for

SPECfp2017. Among the 29 sub-benchmarks, 10 have a degra-

dation exceeding 5%. In summary, TraceRTL simpliﬁes the

requirements for functional correctness and software mo diﬁca-

tions, providing a robust development platform for exploration

around MMU.

To evaluate the accuracy, we compare TraceRTL-based

Hypervisor against fully-functional XiangShan Hypervisor on

SPEC CPU2006 under KVM virtualization. As shown in

Fig. 17, TraceRTL achieves high accuracy, with performance

errors below 1% for 19 of 23 sub-benchmarks. The overall error

is 0.32% for SPECint2006 and 0.23% for SPECfp2006.

7.3. Prototyping #2: FDivSqrt Unit

TraceRTL enables the implementation of dummy execution

units with conﬁgurable latency b ehavior without complex be-

havioral modeling. For instance, implementing a functional

FDivSqrt unit in RTL entails substantial eﬀort, as the imple-

mentation in XiangShan exceeds 2,400 LOC and requires exten-

sive veriﬁcation. To evaluate the pipelined design [60] without

incurring such overhead, alternative modeling approaches are

necessary. XS-gem5 adopts cycle-accurate modeling for execu-

tion units and requires more than 40 LOC of modiﬁcations.

In contrast, TraceRTL enables dummy implementation with

conﬁgurable latency in fewer than 10 LOC of modiﬁcations,

eliminating veriﬁcation overhead. Figure 18 shows the perfor-

mance impact of replacing two blocking FDivSqrt units with a

pipelined version across benchmarks where TraceRTL changes

exceed 0.5%. Notable discrepancies b etween XiangShan and

XS-gem5 appear in SPEC CPU2006 wrf and SPEC CPU2017

lbm. Given the diﬀerences in performance accuracy, TraceRTL

results are considered more reliable.

7.4. Performance Sensitivity Accuracy

In addition to the performance accuracy of the processor model,

the performance sensitivity to microarchitectural modiﬁcations

is also important. To evaluate the performance sensitivity

accuracy to microarchitectural modiﬁcations, we adjust key

conﬁgurations in the frontend, backend, and memory subsys-

tem. For the frontend, we compare the performance impact of

diﬀerent branch target buﬀer (BTB) sizes—speciﬁcally, from

Figure 18. Performance improvement when adopting pipelined FDivSqrt

on SPECfp2006 and SPECfp2017.

1024 to 2048 (default) entries. For the backend, we vary the

number of ﬂoating-point units FMA from 2 to 4 (default). For

the memory subsystem, we evaluate performance with the best-

oﬀset prefetcher in the L2 cache both disabled and enabled

(default).

As shown in Fig. 19, we compare the performance variations

of XiangShan, TraceRTL and XS-gem5 on SPEC CPU2017

benchmarks under microarchitectural mo diﬁcations mentioned

above. The performance trends observed on TraceRTL closely

match those of XiangShan better than those of XS-gem5.

For instance, when enlarging BTB size, sub-benchmarks such

as 500.perlbench, 502.gcc, and 511.povray exhibit similar

trends between TraceRTL and XiangShan. When increasing

the number of the FMA, sub-benchmarks like 507.cactuB-

SSN, 508.namd, and 519.lbm show consistent behavior. When

adopting the best-oﬀset prefetcher, sub-benchmarks including

500.perlbench and 507.cactuBSSN also demonstrate analogous

performance improvements.

We analyze the notable performance errors of XS-gem5

and ﬁnd that its prefetching subsystem is considerably more

complex and ﬁnely tuned, yet lacks clear calibration against

the RTL design. This mismatch diminishes the observable

performance gains from new prefetchers such as best-oﬀset.

The observation highlights the fundamental calibration chal-

lenge and motivates the design of TraceRTL: while a model

may overﬁt to the baseline conﬁguration to reproduce sim-

ilar overall performance, its performance trends for speciﬁc

microarchitectural features may diverge signiﬁcantly.

8. Related Work

Trace-Driven Model Transformation. Prior work has explored

employing trace-based methods to directly control RTL mod-

ules’ behavior for functional veriﬁcation, coverage analysis, and

performance validation [61, 62]. These works use traces to drive

separate RTL modules and the main challenge lies in the gener-

ation of traces. Some works collect the traces generated by CPU

RTL models for coverage analysis [63]. In contrast, TraceRTL,

centered on the whole CPU RTL model, addresses the chal-

lenges of design space exploration at the RTL level. Given that

achieving high performance accuracy is both a fundamental

requirement and a persistent challenge, TraceRTL provides a

solution that not only supp orts prototyping but also enables

the execution of workloads in trace form. Trace-driven method-

ology can be used to improve existing software simulators,

such as the trace-driven gem5 mentioned at [64]. In contrast,

TraceRTL enhances the RTL simulation to avoid extra model

TraceRTL: Agile Performance Evaluation

(a) From 1024 to 2048 BTB entries on SPEC CPU2017.

(b) Increasing FMA number from 2 to 4 on SPECfp2017.

Figure 19. Performance improvements of microarchitectural mo diﬁca-

tions on XiangShan, TraceRTL and XS-gem5.

layers. Accel-Sim [65] adds a new frontend for GPGPU-Sim [66]

to support trace-driven simulation. Unlike Accel-Sim’s high-

level GPU modeling, TraceRTL targets low-level RTL CPU

models and addresses challenges of model calibration.

Trace-Driven Performance Inaccuracy. Previous works

have investigated p erformance inaccuracy in trace-driven sim-

ulation, primarily focusing on the wrong-path simulation in

single-core [67–69], multi-core [70, 71] and synchronization in

multi-core simulation [72, 73]. Our methodology mainly focuses

on prefetching inﬂuence of wrong paths by taking the instruc-

tions at the correct path as wrong-path instructions, to suit

the RTL model and achieve high accuracy. Moreover, exist-

ing trace-driven simulators have a high level of abstraction ,

which may introduce performance errors thus masking some

inﬂuencing factors. TraceRTL provides a platform for studying

trace-driven simulation.

Error-Prone RTL Model. New RTL languages such as

Bluespec SystemVerilog [12], Chisel [13], and SpinalHDL [39]

provide high expressiveness and abstraction to reduce design

errors. Assassyn [74] introduces a high-level abstraction for

asynchronous event handling of pipelined architectures and can

generate a calibrated C++ simulator. TraceRTL presents an

orthogonal approach to utilizing a trace-driven methodology

to decouple the functional and performance models of existing

CPU models and expand the scope of workloads.

Trace Format Transformation. Prior work has explored

trace format transformation, e.g., converting Arm traces into

ChampSim-compatible format [7, 75]. However, ChampSim’s

high-level abstraction bypasses many low-level challenges, such

as diﬀerences in instruction semantics, encoding size, PC align-

ment, and branch oﬀset range, which become critical when

executing traces on RTL models.

9. Conclusion

We propose TraceRTL, a methodology to bring trace-driven

simulation to the CPU RTL model to facilitate agile perfor-

mance evaluation. We evaluate TraceRTL by integrating it into

XiangShan, achieving high accuracy of 99.87% and 99.86% on

SPECint2017 and SPECfp2017. We propose a trace transforma-

tion strategy, TraceBridge, and evaluate x86 Google workload

traces on the RISC-V XiangShan. TraceRTL mitigates the

benchmarking gap between software simulators and RTL de-

sign, supports both an RTL-based performance exploration

workﬂow and seamless integration with simulator-driven ﬂows,

serving as a bridge from early-stage exploration to last-mile

RTL evaluation.

Ethical Statement

No ethical approval was required for this study, as it did not

involve human or animal subjects.

Funding

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foun-

dation of China (Grant No. 62090022, 62090023, 62172388) and

the Strategic Priority Research Program of Chinese Academy

of Sciences (Grant No. XDA0320000, XDA0320300).

Declaration of competing interests

The authors declare that they have no known competing ﬁnan-

cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared

to inﬂuence the work reported in this paper.

Data Availability Statements

The data supporting the ﬁndings of this study are openly

available in XiangShan at https://github.com/OpenXiangShan/

XiangShan/tree/dev-tracertl.

Credit authorship contribution statement

Zifei Zhang: Conceptualization; Project administration;

Methodology; Validation; Investigation; Data curation; Formal

Analysis; Writing – original draft. Yinan Xu: Methodology;

Writing – review & editing; Kaichen Gong: Software; Vali-

dation; Investigation. Sa Wang: Writing; Visualization. Dan

Tang: Supervision; Funding acquisition; Resources. Yungang

Bao: Supervision; Funding acquisition; Resources; Writing –

review & editing.

References

1. D. Burger and T. M. Austin, “The simplescalar tool

set, version 2.0,” SIGARCH Comput. Archit. News,

Z. Zhang et al.

vol. 25, no. 3, p. 13–25, Jun. 1997, doi: https://

doi.org/10.1145/268806.268810. [Online]. Available: https:

//doi.org/10.1145/268806.268810

2. M. M. K. Martin et al., “Multifacet’s gen-

eral execution-driven multiprocessor simulator (gems)

toolset,” SIGARCH Comput. Archit. News, vol. 33,

no. 4, p. 92–99, Nov. 2005, doi: https:

//doi.org/10.1145/1105734.1105747. [Online]. Available:

https://doi.org/10.1145/1105734.1105747

3. N. Binkert, R. Dreslinski, L. Hsu, K. Lim, A. Saidi, and

S. Reinhardt, “The m5 simulator: Modeling networked

systems,” IEEE Micro, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 52–60, 2006, doi:

https://doi.org/10.1109/MM.2006.82.

4. N. Binkert et al., “The gem5 simulator,” SIGARCH

Comput. Archit. News, vol. 39, no. 2, p. 1–7, Aug. 2011,

doi: https://doi.org/10.1145/2024716.2024718. [Online].

Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/2024716.2024718

5. T. E. Carlson, W. Heirman, and L. Eeckhout, “Sniper:

exploring the level of abstraction for scalable and

accurate parallel multi-core simulation,” in Proceedings

of 2011 International Conference for High Performance

Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis, ser. SC

’11. New York, NY, USA: Asso ciation for Computing

Machinery, 2011, doi: https://doi.org/10.1145/2063384.

2063454. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/

2063384.2063454

6. D. Sanchez and C. Kozyrakis, “Zsim: fast and ac-

curate microarchitectural simulation of thousand-core

systems,” in Proceedings of the 40th Annual In-

ternational Symposium on Computer Architecture,

ser. ISCA ’13. New York, NY, USA: Associa-

tion for Computing Machinery, 2013, p. 475–486,

doi: https://doi.org/10.1145/2485922.2485963. [Online].

Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/2485922.2485963

7. N. Gober et al., “The championship simulator: Archi-

tectural simulation for education and competition,” 2022.

[Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2210.14324

8. H. Golestani, R. Sen, V. Young, and G. Gupta,

“Calipers: a criticality-aware framework for modeling

processor performance,” in Proceedings of the 36th ACM

International Conference on Supercomputing, ser. ICS

’22. New York, NY, USA: Asso ciation for Computing

Machinery, 2022, doi: https://doi.org/10.1145/3524059.

3532390. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/

3524059.3532390

9. T. Nowatzki, J. Menon, C.-H. Ho, and K. Sankaralingam,

“Architectural simulators considered harmful,” IEEE

Micro, vol. 35, no. 6, pp. 4–12, 2015, doi: https:

//doi.org/10.1109/MM.2015.74.

10. “Cbp2025 simulator framework,” https://ericrotenberg.

wordpress.ncsu.edu/cbp2025-simulator-framework/, 2025.

11. S. Zhang, A. Wright, T. Bourgeat, and Arvind,

“Composable building blocks to open up processor

design,” in Proceedings of the 51st Annual IEEE/ACM

International Symposium on Microarchitecture, ser.

MICRO-51. IEEE Press, 2018, p. 68–81, doi: https:

//doi.org/10.1109/MICRO.2018.00015. [Online]. Available:

https://doi.org/10.1109/MICRO.2018.00015

12. T. Bourgeat, C. Pit-Claudel, A. Chlipala, and Arvind, “The

essence of bluespec: a core language for rule-based hardware

design,” in Proceedings of the 41st ACM SIGPLAN

Conference on Programming Language Design and

Implementation, ser. PLDI 2020. New York, NY, USA:

Association for Computing Machinery, 2020, p. 243–257,

doi: https://doi.org/10.1145/3385412.3385965. [Online].

Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3385412.3385965

13. J. Bachrach et al., “Chisel: constructing hardware in a scala

embedded language,” in Proceedings of the 49th Annual

Design Automation Conference, 2012, pp. 1216–1225,

doi: https://doi.org/10.1145/2228360.2228584. [Online].

Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/2228360.2228584

14. Verilator, “Verilator user’s guide,” https://www.veripool.

org/guide/latest/, 2026.

15. H. Wang and S. Beamer, “Repcut: Superlinear parallel

rtl simulation with replication-aided partitioning,” in

Proceedings of the 28th ACM International Conference

on Architectural Support for Programming Languages

and Operating Systems, Volume 3, ser. ASPLOS

2023. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing

Machinery, 2023, p. 572–585, doi: https://doi.org/

10.1145/3582016.3582034. [Online]. Available: https:

//doi.org/10.1145/3582016.3582034

16. K. Zhou, Y. Liang, Y. Lin, R. Wang, and R. Huang,

“Khronos: Fusing memory access for improved hardware rtl

simulation,” in Proceedings of the 56th Annual IEEE/ACM

International Symposium on Microarchitecture, ser.

MICRO ’23. New York, NY, USA: Association for

Computing Machinery, 2023, p. 180–193, doi: https:

//doi.org/10.1145/3613424.3614301. [Online]. Available:

https://doi.org/10.1145/3613424.3614301

17. H. Wang, T. Nijssen, and S. Beamer, “Don’t repeat

yourself! coarse-grained circuit deduplication to accelerate

rtl simulation,” in Proceedings of the 29th ACM

International Conference on Architectural Support for

Programming Languages and Operating Systems, Volume

4, ser. ASPLOS ’24. New York, NY, USA: Association

for Computing Machinery, 2025, p. 79–93, doi: https:

//doi.org/10.1145/3622781.3674184. [Online]. Available:

https://doi.org/10.1145/3622781.3674184

18. M. Emami, T. Bourgeat, and J. R. Larus, “Parendi:

Thousand-way parallel rtl simulation,” in Proceedings of

the 30th ACM International Conference on Architectural

Support for Programming Languages and Operating Sys-

tems, Volume 2, ser. ASPLOS ’25. New York, NY, USA:

Association for Computing Machinery, 2025, p. 783–797,

doi: https://doi.org/10.1145/3676641.3716010. [Online].

Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3676641.3716010

19. S. Karandikar et al., “Firesim: Fpga-accelerated cycle-

exact scale-out system simulation in the public cloud,” in

Proceedings of the 45th Annual International Symposium

on Computer Architecture, ser. ISCA ’18. IEEE Press,

2018, p. 29–42, doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/ISCA.2018.

00014. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/ISCA.

2018.00014

20. ——, “Fireperf: Fpga-accelerated full-system hard-

ware/software performance proﬁling and co-design,” in

Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth International Con-

ference on Architectural Support for Programming

Languages and Operating Systems, ser. ASPLOS

’20. New York, NY, USA: Association for Com-

puting Machinery, 2020, p. 715–731, doi: https:

//doi.org/10.1145/3373376.3378455. [Online]. Available:

https://doi.org/10.1145/3373376.3378455

21. M. Emami, S. Kashani, K. Kamahori, M. S. Pourghannad,

R. Raj, and J. R. Larus, “Manticore: Hardware-accelerated

rtl simulation with static bulk-synchronous parallelism,”

in Proceedings of the 28th ACM International Conference

on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and

TraceRTL: Agile Performance Evaluation

Operating Systems, Volume 4, 2023, pp. 219–237, doi:

https://doi.org/10.1145/3623278.3624750.

22. F. Elsabbagh, S. Sheikhha, V. A. Ying, Q. M.

Nguyen, J. S. Emer, and D. Sanchez, “Accelerating

rtl simulation with hardware-software co-design,” in

Proceedings of the 56th Annual IEEE/ACM International

Symposium on Microarchitecture, 2023, pp. 153–166, doi:

https://doi.org/10.1145/3613424.3614257.

23. C. Celio, D. A. Patterson, and K. Asanovic,

“The berkeley out-of-order machine (boom): An

industry-competitive, synthesizable, parameterized risc-v

processor,” EECS Department, University of Califor-

nia, Berkeley, Tech. Rep. UCB/EECS-2015-167, 2015.

[Online]. Available: https://www2.eecs.berkeley.edu/Pubs/

TechRpts/2015/EECS-2015- 167.html

24. J. Zhao, B. Korpan, A. Gonzalez, and K. Asanovic,

“Sonicboom: The 3rd generation berkeley out-of-order

machine,” in Fourth Workshop on Computer Architecture

Research with RISC-V, vol. 5, 2020, pp. 1–7. [On-

line]. Available: https://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/

∼

krste/

papers/SonicBOOM-CARRV2020.pdf

25. C. Celio, P.-F. Chiu, B. Nikolic, D. A. Patterson,

and K. Asanovic, “BOOMv2: an open-source out-of-

order RISC-V core,” in First Workshop on Computer

Architecture Research with RISC-V (CARRV), 2017.

[Online]. Available: https://www2.eecs.berkeley.edu/Pubs/

TechRpts/2017/EECS-2017- 157.pdf

26. K. Wang et al., “ XiangShan: An Open-Source Pro ject for

High-Performance RISC-V Processors Meeting Industrial-

Grade Standards ,” in 2024 IEEE Hot Chips 36 Symposium

(HCS). Los Alamitos, CA, USA: IEEE Computer Society,

Aug. 2024, pp. 1–25, doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/

HCS61935.2024.10665293. [Online]. Available: https://doi.

ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/HCS61935.2024.10665293

27. C. Chen et al., “Xuantie-910: A commercial multi-core 12-

stage pip eline out-of-order 64-bit high performance risc-v

processor with vector extension: Industrial product,” in

2020 ACM/IEEE 47th Annual International Symposium

on Computer Architecture (ISCA). IEEE, 2020, pp. 52–

64, doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/ISCA45697.2020.00016.

28. C. Bai, Q. Sun, J. Zhai, Y. Ma, B. Yu, and M. D.

Wong, “Boom-explorer: Risc-v boom microarchitecture

design space exploration framework,” in 2021 IEEE/ACM

International Conference On Computer Aided Design

(ICCAD). IEEE, 2021, pp. 1–9, doi: https://doi.org/10.

1109/ICCAD51958.2021.9643455.

29. S. Gupta et al., “Imprecise store exceptions,” in

Proceedings of the 50th Annual International Symposium

on Computer Architecture, ser. ISCA ’23. New York,

NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery, 2023,

doi: https://doi.org/10.1145/3579371.3589087. [Online].

Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3579371.3589087

30. M. Ghaniyoun, K. Barber, Y. Xiao, Y. Zhang, and

R. Teodorescu, “Teesec: Pre-silicon vulnerability discovery

for trusted execution environments,” in Proceedings of

the 50th Annual International Symposium on Computer

Architecture, ser. ISCA ’23. New York, NY, USA:

Association for Computing Machinery, 2023, doi: https:

//doi.org/10.1145/3579371.3589070. [Online]. Available:

https://doi.org/10.1145/3579371.3589070

31. L. Wang et al., “Asynchronous memory access unit:

Exploiting massive parallelism for far memory access,”

ACM Trans. Archit. Code Optim., vol. 21, no. 3,

Sep. 2024, doi: https://doi.org/10.1145/3663479. [Online].

Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3663479

32. D. Wang et al., “A transfer learning framework for

high-accurate cross-workload design space exploration of

cpu,” in 2023 IEEE/ACM International Conference on

Computer Aided Design (ICCAD), 2023, pp. 1–9, doi:

https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCAD57390.2023.10323840.

33. H. Ando, “Performance improvement by prioritizing the

issue of the instructions in unconﬁdent branch slices,” in

2018 51st Annual IEEE/ACM International Symposium

on Microarchitecture (MICRO), 2018, pp. 82–94, doi:

https://doi.org/10.1109/MICRO.2018.00016.

34. Y. Xu et al., “Towards developing high performance

risc-v processors using agile methodology,” in 2022

55th IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Mi-

croarchitecture (MICRO), 2022, pp. 1178–1199, doi:

https://doi.org/10.1109/MICRO56248.2022.00080.

35. “Championship value prediction,” https://microarch.org/

cvp1/, accessed: 2025-02-20.

36. “Google workload traces version 2,” https://console.cloud.

google.com/storage/browser/external-traces- v2, accessed:

2025-02-20.

37. W. Su et al., “Dcperf: An open-source, battle-tested

performance benchmark suite for datacenter workloads,” in

Proceedings of the 52nd Annual International Symposium

on Computer Architecture, ser. ISCA ’25. New York,

NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery, 2025,

p. 1717–1730, doi: https://doi.org/10.1145/3695053.

3731411. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/

3695053.3731411

38. OpenXiangShan, “XiangShan,” https://github.com/

OpenXiangShan/XiangShan, 2020.

39. SpinalHDL, “Scala based hdl,” https://github.com/

SpinalHDL/SpinalHDL, 2024.

40. T. Sherwood, E. Perelman, G. Hamerly, and B. Calder,

“Automatically characterizing large scale program behav-

ior,” in Proceedings of the 10th International Conference

on Architectural Support for Programming Languages

and Operating Systems, ser. ASPLOS X. New York,

NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery, 2002,

p. 45–57, doi: https://doi.org/10.1145/605397.605403.

[Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/605397.605403

41. A. Sabu, H. Patil, W. Heirman, and T. E. Carlson,

“Looppoint: Checkpoint-driven sampled simulation for

multi-threaded applications,” in 2022 IEEE International

Symposium on High-Performance Computer Architecture

(HPCA). IEEE, 2022, pp. 604–618, doi: https:

//doi.org/10.1109/HPCA53966.2022.00051.

42. T. E. Carlson, W. Heirman, K. Van Craeynest, and

L. Eeckhout, “Barrierpoint: Sampled simulation of multi-

threaded applications,” in 2014 IEEE International

Symposium on Performance Analysis of Systems and

Software (ISPASS). IEEE, 2014, pp. 2–12, doi:

https://doi.org/10.1109/ISPASS.2014.6844456.

43. K. Asanovic et al., “The rocket chip generator,”

EECS Department, University of California, Berke-

ley, Tech. Rep. UCB/EECS-2016-17, vol. 4,

pp. 6–2, 2016. [Online]. Available: https:

//aspire.eecs.berkeley.edu/wp/wp-content/uploads/2016/

04/Tech-Report-The- Rocket-Chip- Generator-Beamer.pdf

44. B. S´a, L. Valente, J. Martins, D. Rossi, L. Benini,

and S. Pinto, “CVA6 RISC-V virtualization: Architecture,

microarchitecture, and design space exploration,” IEEE

Transactions on Very Large Scale Integration (VLSI)

Systems, 2023, doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/TVLSI.2023.

Z. Zhang et al.

3302837.

45. R.-V. community, “Olympia,” https://github.com/

riscv-software-src/riscv- perf- model, 2026.

46. C.-K. Luk et al., “Pin: building customized program

analysis tools with dynamic instrumentation,” in Pro-

ceedings of the 2005 ACM SIGPLAN Conference on

Programming Language Design and Implementation,

ser. PLDI ’05. New York, NY, USA: Associa-

tion for Computing Machinery, 2005, p. 190–200,

doi: https://doi.org/10.1145/1065010.1065034. [Online].

Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/1065010.1065034

47. D. Bruening, E. Duesterwald, and S. Amarasinghe, “Design

and implementation of a dynamic optimization framework

for windows,” in 4th ACM workshop on feedback-directed

and dynamic optimization (FDDO-4), 2001, p. 20.

48. N. Nethercote and J. Seward, “Valgrind: a framework

for heavyweight dynamic binary instrumentation,” in

Proceedings of the 28th ACM SIGPLAN Conference

on Programming Language Design and Implementation,

ser. PLDI ’07. New York, NY, USA: Association for

Computing Machinery, 2007, p. 89–100, doi: https:

//doi.org/10.1145/1250734.1250746. [Online]. Available:

https://doi.org/10.1145/1250734.1250746

49. DynamoRIO, “Dynamorio trace format,” https:

//dynamorio.org/sec

drcachesim format.html, accessed:

2026-02-07.

50. F. Bellard, “QEMU, a fast and portable dynamic transla-

tor.” in USENIX annual technical conference, FREENIX

Track, vol. 41, no. 46. California, USA, 2005, pp. 10–5555.

[Online]. Available: https://www.usenix.org/legacy/event/

usenix05/tech/freenix/full

papers/bellard/bellard.pdf

51. S. Pandey, A. Yazdanbakhsh, and H. Liu, “Tao: Re-thinking

dl-based microarchitecture simulation,” Proceedings of the

ACM on Measurement and Analysis of Computing

Systems, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 1–25, 2024, doi: https:

//doi.org/10.1145/3656012.

52. M. E. S. Elrabaa, A. Hroub, M. F. Mudawar, A. Al-

Aghbari, M. Al-Asli, and A. Khayyat, “A very fast

trace-driven simulation platform for chip-multiprocessors

architectural explorations,” IEEE Transactions on Parallel

and Distributed Systems, vol. 28, no. 11, pp. 3033–3045,

2017, doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/TPDS.2017.2713782.

53. OpenXiangShan, “XS-gem5,” https://github.com/

OpenXiangShan/GEM5, 2020.

54. J. L. Henning, “Spec cpu2006 benchmark descriptions,”

ACM SIGARCH Computer Architecture News, vol. 34,

no. 4, pp. 1–17, 2006, doi: https://doi.org/10.1145/

1186736.1186737.

55. J. Bucek, K.-D. Lange, and J. v. Kistowski, “SPEC

CPU2017: Next-generation compute benchmark,” in

Companion of the 2018 ACM/SPEC International

Conference on Performance Engineering, 2018, pp. 41–42,

doi: https://doi.org/10.1145/3185768.3185771.

56. OpenXiangShan, “NEMU,” https://github.com/

OpenXiangShan/NEMU, 2019.

57. A. Yasin, “A top-down method for performance analysis

and counters architecture,” in 2014 IEEE International

Symposium on Performance Analysis of Systems and

Software (ISPASS), 2014, pp. 35–44, doi: https:

//doi.org/10.1109/ISPASS.2014.6844459.

58. A. Karpathy, “llama2.c: Inference Llama 2 in one ﬁle of

pure C,” https://github.com/karpathy/llama2.c, accessed:

2026-02-07.

59. RISC-V, “RISC-V Instruction Set Manual,” https://github.

com/riscv/riscv-isa- manual, accessed: 2026-02-07.

60. J. D. Bruguera, “Low-latency and high-bandwidth

pipelined radix-64 division and square root unit,”

in 2022 IEEE 29th Symposium on Computer

Arithmetic (ARITH), 2022, pp. 10–17, doi:

https://doi.org/10.1109/ARITH54963.2022.00012.

61. V. M. Vedula, J. A. Abraham, J. Bhadra, and R. Tupuri,

“A hierarchical test generation approach using program

slicing techniques on hardware description languages,”

Journal of Electronic Testing, vol. 19, pp. 149–160, 2003,

doi: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022885523034.

62. L. Liu and S. Vasudevan, “Eﬃcient validation input

generation in rtl by hybridized source code analysis,” in

2011 Design, Automation & Test in Europe, 2011, pp.

1–6, doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/DATE.2011.5763253.

63. B. Mammo, J. Larimer, M. Morgan, D. Fan, E. Hen-

nenhoefer, and V. Bertacco, “Architectural trace-based

functional coverage for multiprocessor veriﬁcation,” in

2012 13th International Workshop on Microprocessor

Test and Veriﬁcation (MTV), 2012, pp. 1–5, doi:

https://doi.org/10.1109/MTV.2012.12.

64. S. Apostolakis, C. Kennelly, X. D. Li, and P. Ranganathan,

“Necro-reaper: Pruning away dead memory traﬃc in

warehouse-scale computers,” in Proceedings of the 30th

ACM International Conference on Architectural Support

for Programming Languages and Operating Systems,

Volume 2, ser. ASPLOS ’25. New York, NY, USA:

Association for Computing Machinery, 2025, p. 689–703,

doi: https://doi.org/10.1145/3676641.3716007. [Online].

Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3676641.3716007

65. M. Khairy, Z. Shen, T. M. Aamodt, and T. G.

Rogers, “Accel-sim: An extensible simulation framework

for validated gpu modeling,” in 2020 ACM/IEEE

47th Annual International Symposium on Computer

Architecture (ISCA), 2020, pp. 473–486, doi: https:

//doi.org/10.1109/ISCA45697.2020.00047.

66. A. Bakhoda, G. L. Yuan, W. W. L. Fung, H. Wong, and

T. M. Aamodt, “Analyzing cuda workloads using a detailed

gpu simulator,” in 2009 IEEE International Symposium

on Performance Analysis of Systems and Software, 2009,

pp. 163–174, doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/ISPASS.2009.

4919648.

67. O. Mutlu, H. Kim, D. N. Armstrong, and Y. N.

Patt, “An analysis of the performance impact of wrong-

path memory references on out-of-order and runahead

execution pro cessors,” IEEE Transactions on Computers,

vol. 54, no. 12, pp. 1556–1571, 2005, doi: https:

//doi.org/10.1109/TC.2005.190.

68. S. Eyerman, S. Van den Steen, W. Heirman, and

I. Hur, “Simulating wrong-path instructions in decoupled

functional-ﬁrst simulation,” in 2023 IEEE International

Symposium on Performance Analysis of Systems and

Software (ISPASS). IEEE, 2023, pp. 124–133, doi:

https://doi.org/10.1109/ISPASS57527.2023.00021.

69. B. R. Godala et al., “Correct wrong path,” arXiv

preprint arXiv:2408.05912, 2024. [Online]. Available:

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2408.05912

70. R. Sendag, A. Yilmazer, J. J. Yi, and A. K. Uht,

“The impact of wrong-path memory references in cache-

coherent multiprocessor systems,” Journal of Parallel and

Distributed Computing, vol. 67, no. 12, pp. 1256–1269,

2007, best Paper Awards: 20th International Parallel

and Distributed Processing Symposium (IPDPS 2006).

TraceRTL: Agile Performance Evaluation

doi: https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpdc.2007.

03.005. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.

com/science/article/pii/S0743731507000457

71. R. Sendag, A. Yilmazer, J. Yi, and A. Uht, “Quantifying

and reducing the eﬀects of wrong-path memory references

in cache-coherent multiprocessor systems,” in Proceedings

20th IEEE International Parallel & Distributed Processing

Symposium, 2006, pp. 10 pp.–, doi: https://doi.org/10.

1109/IPDPS.2006.1639260.

72. S. R. Goldschmidt and J. L. Hennessy, “The accuracy

of trace-driven simulations of multiprocessors,” ACM

SIGMETRICS Performance Evaluation Review, vol. 21,

no. 1, pp. 146–157, 1993, doi: https://doi.org/10.1145/

166962.167001.

73. K. Sangaiah et al., “Synchrotrace: Synchronization-

aware architecture-agnostic traces for lightweight multicore

simulation of cmp and hpc workloads,” ACM Trans.

Archit. Code Optim., vol. 15, no. 1, Mar. 2018,

doi: https://doi.org/10.1145/3158642. [Online]. Available:

https://doi.org/10.1145/3158642

74. J. Weng et al., “Assassyn: A uniﬁed abstraction

for architectural simulation and implementation,” in

Proceedings of the 52nd Annual International Symposium

on Computer Architecture, ser. ISCA ’25. New York,

NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery, 2025,

p. 1464–1479, doi: https://doi.org/10.1145/3695053.

3731004. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/

3695053.3731004

75. J. Feliu, A. Perais, D. A. Jim´enez, and A. Ros, “Rebasing

microarchitectural research with industry traces,” in

2023 IEEE International Symposium on Workload

Characterization (IISWC), 2023, pp. 100–114, doi:

https://doi.org/10.1109/IISWC59245.2023.00027.

BenchCouncil Transactions on Benchmarks, Standards and

Evaluations, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.66834/xqpw3878

Review Article

REVIEW ARTICLE

Mapping the Intellectual Landscape of Blockchain in

the Banking Industry: A Hybrid Bibliometric and

Systematic Review (2015–2025)

Sadeq Abdullah Aladeeb

1,2,∗

and Fatima Zohra Sossi Alaoui

Laboratory of Economics, Finance, Management and Innovation, Faculty of Economics and Management, Ibn Tofail University, Kenitra, Morocco

and

Department of Accounting and Auditing, Faculty of Commerce and Economics, Sana’a University, Sana’a, Yemen

∗

Corresponding author. Email: sadeqabdullahhasan.al-adeeb@uit.ac.ma

Received on 8 August 2025; Accepted on 13 March 2026

Abstract

The advent of blockchain technology has introduced new alternatives to traditional banking systems, providing a decen-

tralized, secure, and transparent framework. However, its adoption is still complex and uneven for many reasons. This

study provides a comprehensive mapping of the intellectual trajectory, thematic structure, and development of blockchain

technology research in the banking sector. Using a hybrid literature review methodology that combines bibliometric anal-

ysis and systematic content review, the study analyzes 389 peer-reviewed publications retrieved from Scopus (2015–May

2025). VOSviewer was employed to conduct performance analysis and science mapping, including co-authorship, co-

citation, keyword co-occurrence, and bibliographic coupling analyses. In parallel, qualitative thematic analysis identied

six clusters: (1) blockchain in banking and nancial intermediation to enhance operational eciency, (2) decentralized

nance and cryptocurrencies, (3) integration of blockchain with other digital innovations, (4) trust-related dimensions,

(5) institutional and regulatory aspects, and (6) strategies for modernizing banking business models. The ndings reveal

a steady rise in research output, regional disparities in collaboration, and thematic evolution from early conceptualiza-

tion to recent signs of diversication of applied research. By integrating quantitative and qualitative insights, this study

highlights key research gaps, oers directions for future work, and provides guidance for academics, practitioners, and

policymakers on the transformative potential and challenges of blockchain in banking.

Key words: Blockchain Technology, Banking Sector, Bibliometric Analysis, Systematic Content Review, Financial

Technology, Decentralized Finance

1. Introduction

In recent years, the banking sector has undergone a signicant

transformation, driven by the rapid advancement of emerging

technologies, particularly blockchain. The widespread adoption of

smartphones and high-speed data transmission has not only dis-

rupted social interactions but also traditional business operations.

However, legacy banking systems have faced challenges in adapting

to these technological advancements due to factors such as struc-

tural rigidity, high operational costs, and inadequate transaction

processing speeds. For instance, cross-border remittances frequently

necessitate several days to complete, an ineciency that starkly con-

trasts with the near-instantaneous nature of digital communication

[

1].

In this context, blockchain technology emerged in 2008 as the

technology underpinning Bitcoin, a peer-to-peer digital currency

eliminating the intermediary [2]. Its decentralized nature allows

for secure, anonymous, and cost-eective transactions. This has

led to the conclusion that it possesses considerable potential as an

o-balance sheet replacement for conventional banking systems [3].

The theory behind blockchain, however, goes back to the early

1990s when Stuart Haber and W. Scott Stornetta developed a cryp-

tographically secure method of time-stamping digital documents

[4]. Their subsequent introduction of Merkle trees enabled data

to be gathered into chained blocks, signicantly enhancing secu-

rity as well as eciency [5]. The modern blockchain, conceptualized

by Satoshi Nakamoto, is a form of Distributed Ledger Technology

(DLT) that utilizes consensus algorithms on distributed nodes to

record transactions [6, 7]. The design of the blockchain, which con-

sists of a series of blocks that are cryptographically linked, ensures

immutability and tamper-proong. Consequently, it establishes a

highly reliable digital record-keeping system [8]. The application

of blockchain technology has expanded beyond its initial imple-

mentation in the domain of cryptocurrency. It has been adopted

in various elds, including logistics, health, public administration,

supply chain management, and, notably, nancial services [

9–14].

S. A. Aladeeb et al.

In the banking sector, blockchain is increasingly seen as an inno-

vative way to transform the trustworthiness and reliability of data

management [15]. As digital technology continues to penetrate daily

life and concern about data security grows, blockchain’s signicance

will continue to rise. It may become as integral to daily life as the

internet [6]. Furthermore, the emergence of newer technologies, such

as blockchain, will transform the banking sector in the near future

[16]. For example, banks are expected to save $10 billion in cross-

border payment fees by 2030 by adopting blockchain technology

[17]. According to World Economic Forum projections, blockchain

technology will reach a signicant milestone by 2027, becoming in-

tegrated into various sectors of the global economy. A considerable

augmentation in the nancial sector, including the banking industry,

is projected to increase GDP by 10% [18].

Among the most prominent manifestations of this transformation

is the rise of decentralized nance (DeFi), which uses blockchain

technology to facilitate peer-to-peer nancial services without the

need for intermediaries such as conventional banks. This setup tran-

scends geographical locations and provides basic nancial services,

such as savings, loans, and investment products to poor communities

in emerging economies [19, 20].

As a revolutionary innovation, blockchain technology oers

numerous benets: enhanced security, privacy, operational trans-

parency, and increased eciency. This is all a result of its de-

centralized nature and the use of cryptographic algorithms, which

signicantly reduce the risk of cyberattacks and fraud while ensuring

traceability and data integrity [21–24]. Consequently, banks are in-

creasingly exploring blockchain technology for applications such as

cross-border payments, streamlined Know Your Customer (KYC)

processes, enhanced anti-money laundering (AML) measures, and

automated contract enforcement through smart contracts. These

innovations collectively contribute to lowering operational costs and

improving overall eciency [25, 26].

Despite the promise of blockchain technology, its adoption by

banks faces limiting factors. These factors include regulatory un-

certainty, technical complexity, and resistance to change at the

organizational level. A meticulous examination of the opportuni-

ties and limitations presented by this technology is imperative,

accompanied by a thorough assessment of awareness, readiness, and

acceptance levels among banks and customers [

27–29].

The timing, evolution trajectory, and possible impact of

blockchain technology on banking have garnered considerable inter-

est among academics and practitioners. In recent years, academic

interest in the topic has increased markedly, resulting in a large and

diverse body of literature. No study, to the best of my knowledge,

has ever carried out a detailed systematic mapping of the intel-

lectual structure, theme development, and future research trends

of blockchain literature in the banking sector using a systematic

integration of bibliometric analysis and systematic content review

methods. Consequently, there is a need to identify and assess the

current state of the art and prevailing research trends in this domain.

To ll this gap, this study utilizes a hybrid methodology of lit-

erature review, combining the bibliometric analysis and systematic

content review to answer the following research questions:

RQ1: What are the prevailing research trends and patterns of

scholarly collaboration in the domain of blockchain technology in

the banking sector between 2015 and 2025?

RQ2: What are the core thematic clusters and intel lectual

structures underpinning blockchain research in the banking sector?

RQ3: What key research gaps and future directions can be iden-

tied to advance the understanding and application of blockchain

technology in the banking sector?

Amidst the accelerating digitalization of banking and nancial

systems, blockchain technology is revolutionizing how banking ser-

vices are produced and disseminated. The primary aim of this

research is to synthesize the current academic literature on the

impact of blockchain on banking by identifying the key concepts,

emerging research trends, and prevailing themes. To this end, the

study adopts a mixed-method research approach combining quan-

titative bibliometric analysis with a qualitative systematic content

analysis to map the intellectual landscape of blockchain studies in

banking. The combination strengthens the validity and credibility of

the ndings, oering an overarching perspective on how blockchain

is reshaping the industry. Besides mapping the literature, the study

provides critical reections on academic and institutional responses

to the emergence of blockchain and indicates avenues for further re-

search in a bid to advance its revolutionary potential in the banking

sector.

By doing so, this study contributes to a deeper understanding of

the signicant development of the eld and guides future academic

and practical engagement with blockchain innovation in the banking

sector. The novelty of the study lies in its explicit framework of tri-

angulation and cross-validation that combines bibliometric science

mapping and qualitative thematic analysis, providing valuable and

actionable insights for academics, practitioners, and policymakers.

In addition, the study contributes to the development of transpar-

ent, safe, and eective banking and nancial systems by identifying

the advantages and obstacles related to the adoption of blockchain

technology systematically and the proposal of an organized agenda

for future research in this eld.

The present article is structured as follows. Subsequent to this

introduction, Section 2 delineates the hybrid review methodology,

meticulously expounding the bibliometric and systematic content

analysis approaches. In Section 3, the results of the performance

analysis and science mapping of 389 publications on blockchain in

banking are presented, and the six main thematic clusters identi-

ed are discussed. Section 4 identies the managerial and practical

implications of the ndings. Finally, Section 5 oers the main con-

clusions, which include a summary of the key ndings, a proposal

of directions for future research, and an acknowledgement of the

study’s limitations.

2. Research Methodology

To achieve the purposes of this study, we use a hybrid review

methodology that integrates bibliometric analysis and systematic

content analysis. The mixed-method approach combines quantita-

tive analysis with a substantial emphasis on qualitative analysis.

A hybrid review approach, as described by Paul and Criado [

30],

is a method that facilitates a comprehensive examination of the lit-

erature by combining quantitative and qualitative approaches, with

the aim of organizing, analyzing, and interpreting data in a mean-

ingful way. The objective is to provide a comprehensive summary

of the scholarly literature on the adoption of blockchain technology

(BCT) in the banking industry and to oer an integrative review of

the main topics, major ndings, and research agendas for the future

in this domain.

Bibliometric analysis, which relies on the statistical evaluation of

academic production [

31], is complemented in this study by content

analysis, a qualitative technique used for the systematic analysis of

textual information and disclosure structure of existing knowledge

within a given discipline [32]. The methodology stages and analytical

tools adopted to fulll the objectives of the study are outlined in

Figure 1.

Stage 1:Research

Planning

Stage 2: Data

Collection

Stage 3 : Bibliometrics

Analysis

Stage 4: Systematic

Content Review and

Thematic Analysis

Research Aims

Research Questions

Database Selection (Scopus)

Keyword Identification

Search Query Formation

Document Screening (Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria)

Final Dataset (389) Documents

Performance Analysis

Visualization (VOSviewer, Excel)

Bibliographic Coupling

Keyword Co-occurrence

Co-citation Analysis

Co-authorship Analysis

Selection of 70 Documents based on Bibliographic Coupling

Identification of Key Clusters

Cross-Validation with key Thematic Cluster

Manual Thematic Coding

Review and Analysis of the Dataset Content

Stage 5 : Outputs

Research Implications/ Future Research Directions

Thematic Clustering

Trends & Influential Entities

Finalize 6 Thematic Clusters

Figure 1. Research Design of the Hybrid Bibliometric–Systematic Literature Review (Developed by the Authors)

S. A. Aladeeb et al.

2.1. Data Collection

2.1.1. Database Selection

In this stage, data were collected from the Scopus database, a

widely recognized and reputable source for bibliometric research

[18, 33]. Although there are other databases, such as Web of

Science, IEEE Xplore, and Google Scholar, Scopus was selected be-

cause it oers the largest curated abstract and citation database

of peer-reviewed social science and business publications, index-

ing over 27,000 active titles from more than 7,000 international

publishers, with particularly strong coverage in Finance, Manage-

ment, Economics, and Information Systems disciplines[34, 35]. Prior

bibliometric methodology research indicates that Scopus retrieves

broader journal coverage and comparable citation structures to Web

of Science for management and interdisciplinary technology studies,

while oering superior metadata consistency for science mapping

analyses. Its extensive coverage also makes it convenient for re-

search in corporate nance, such as the adoption of blockchain in

the banking sector. A dened inclusion criterion was applied for the

selection of relevant keywords and the extraction of the dataset for

bibliometric analysis and systematic literature review.

2.1.2. Keyword Identication

To identify the appropriate keywords for retrieving the dataset of

our research, we have carried out a comprehensive review of the

previous literature on blockchain in the banking sector. The focus

was on determining the most frequent words used in the current

literature [

18, 36, 37]. For this purpose, Google Scholar was used in

the search using the keyword phrase ”Blockchain Technology in the

Banking Sector,” and related studies were referenced to determine

common keywords. Besides, previous bibliometric and systematic

literature reviews were also examined to conrm that the selected

keywords were inclusive and specic.

Based on this literature review, we identied several frequently

used search terms, such as ”Blockchain in Bank,” ”Blockchain

Technology in Bank,” ”Blockchain in Finance,” and ”Blockchain

Technology in Finance.” Additionally, Boolean search strings such

as (blockchain AND banking) and (block-chain AND adoption

AND banking) were identied. Furthermore, consultation with two

academic experts in nance and block-chain conrmed that the key-

words ”Blockchain AND Banking” are frequently used to describe

studies where both blockchain and banking are major foci, rather

than merely contextually related.

Although this exploratory phase did identify a number of re-

lated terms, we purposely restricted the scope of the nal retrieval

query to just ”Blockchain AND Banking” to make sure that both

the blockchain and banking domains are the primary focus of our

analysis and that the studies retrieved are focused products of those

two areas of study. Moreover, the selection of these keywords is con-

gruent with our research objectives, particularly in developing an

intellectual structure and determining the main contributions to-

wards the understanding of the impact of blockchain technology on

banking.

2.1.3. Search Criteria and Data Extraction

The data collection process during the study was conducted system-

atically, following standard bibliometric study practices [38] and

PRISMA guidelines for transparent reporting [39]. On 12 May 2025,

a search was made using the Scopus database with the search term

”Blockchain AND Banking” and yielded 1,641 documents published

between 2015 and 12 May 2025. Although blockchain technol-

ogy emerged in 2008, until 2015, academic interest in adopting

blockchain technology in the banking sector was signicantly nonex-

istent. Therefore, the selected time frame (2015–2025) indicates the

evolution of scientic production in the eld.

Because of the novelty and rapid progress of the research eld,

formal inclusion criteria were applied to ensure the analytical rele-

vance and dataset quality. Only peer-reviewed articles, conference

papers, and review articles were chosen, restricting analysis to the

most relevant subject areas: Business, Management, and Account-

ing; Economics, Econometrics, and Finance; and Social Sciences.

Publications that focused primarily on technical or computational

aspects without a substantial connection to banking, economic, or -

nancial applications were excluded to maintain thematic consistency

with the study’s objectives. Additionally, only English-language doc-

uments were included to ensure conceptual consistency and facilitate

systematic review. The nal search string was as follows:

TITLE-ABS-KEY ( Blockchain AND Banking ) AND PUB-

YEAR > 2015 AND PUBYEAR < 2026 AND ( LIMIT-TO (

SUBJAREA , ”BUSI” ) OR LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA , ”ECON”

) OR LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA , ”SOCI” ) ) AND ( LIMIT-TO (

LANGUAGE , ”English” ) ) AND ( LIMIT-TO ( DOCTYPE , ”ar”

) OR LIMIT-TO ( DOCTYPE , ”cp” ) OR LIMIT-TO ( DOCTYPE

, ”re” ) )

This search strategy prioritizes thematic specicity over broad

recall, which is a typical approach used in bibliometric mapping

studies that strive for clearer concepts and greater analytical co-

herence. In addition, exploratory pilot studies utilizing broader

terminology (ntech, nancial services, distributed ledgers, etc.)

resulted in the retrieval of an excessive number of records (more

than double) that either only slightly or not substantially refer-

enced Blockchain and/or Banking. As a result, continued usage of

this focused search strategy was maintained to ensure precision and

maintain the analytical quality of the results of bibliometric and

thematic analyses of this research.

Following the removal of duplicates and non-relevant documents

using lters, the nal dataset of 389 documents was attained.

The records were saved in CSV (Comma-Separated Values) for-

mat for subsequent bibliometric analysis. To ensure replicability and

transparency, the dataset has been publicly released in a special

repository and is in line with the banking and nance literature’s

standard practices.

2.2. Data Renement and Analysis

The second stage of the systematic protocol involved rening re-

trieved data after the previous step to generate a dataset for

bibliometric mapping and thematic synthesis of the literature. It

is important to note that this stage did not change the content

or makeup of the dataset retrieved from earlier stages; rather, it

enhanced the reliability and interpretability of analyses of keyword-

based data, specically co-occurrence networks and clustering

themes from keywords.

Data preparation involved the systematic elimination of false

positives, the cleaning of metadata elds, and the normalization of

author-provided keywords. Keyword optimization was accomplished

by merging singular and plural forms, standardizing spelling dier-

ences, and consolidating synonymous terms into cohesive conceptual

labels. For instance, terms like ”cryptocurrency” and ”cryptocur-

rencies,” ”smart contracts” and ”smart contract,” as well as ”bank”

and ”banks,” were standardized into singular keyword inputs. Ad-

ditionally, terminology standardization was employed to harmonize

overlapping denitions typically found in the diverse blockchain lit-

erature. This process included incorporating equivalent phrases such

as ”distributed ledger,” ”distributed ledger technology,” ”ntech,”

”decentralized nance,” and ”DeFi,” along with ”banking sector”

and ”banking industry.” Terms that were irrelevant or contextu-

ally unsuitable (such as ”bibliometric analysis and COVID-19”)

were eliminated to uphold thematic consistency. After optimiza-

tion and normalization, two complementary analytical methods were

executed: - Descriptive bibliometric analysis, which evaluated pub-

lication trends, citation patterns, source productivity, and networks

of key contributors across various elds; - Systematic content anal-

ysis, which pinpointed key research themes, core theme groups, and

predominant scholarly discussions arising from the literature.

As a result, this renement process ensured the statistical relia-

bility of bibliometric network structures and the conceptual clarity

of thematic interpretations while not impacting article inclusion or

research coverage.

2.2.1. Bibliometric Analysis

Following the collection and preparation of the research dataset, a

scientometric analysis was conducted for the purpose of examin-

ing the structure and dynamics of the research eld. In this study,

VOSviewer [40], a specialized computer software program for con-

structing and visualizing large-scale bibliometric networks [41], was

employed. VOSviewer software was selected due to its proven capa-

bilities in the management of large networks, as well as its inbuilt

text-mining functionality, which enables the extraction and analysis

of valuable terms and concepts from the literature [42]. Additionally,

Microsoft Excel was used for statistical analysis and data visualiza-

tion, including examining publication trends by year, conducting

citation analysis, and determining keyword frequency.

Bibliometric analysis provides a comprehensive approach for

tracing the development of a research theme with established and

reproducible methods. These methods are largely recognized as

objective, accurate, and reproducible [43]. Two main bibliometric

approaches were applied in this study: performance analysis and

science mapping.

Performance analysis is a fundamental component of bibliometric

analysis, focused on the quantitative assessment of scientic produc-

tivity and impact. It provides a data-driven perspective of scholarly

output and the growth of a scientic discipline over time. This

technique encompasses the analysis of annual publication trends,

identication of highly cited publications, evaluation of leading sci-

entic journals, and assessment of the research contributions by

institutions, countries, and individual authors [

44]. By examining

these indicators, performance analysis provides a comprehensive un-

derstanding of the intellectual evolution of the eld and uncovers its

most inuential contributors.

Science mapping, on the other hand, provides a graphic and

structural representation of the intellectual architecture of the eld

[45]. This technique involves advanced bibliometric techniques such

as co-authorship analysis, citation and co-citation analysis, keyword

co-occurrence, and bibliographic coupling. These analyses help to

uncover primary research areas, common keywords, and the the-

matic clusters that form the landscape of the eld [46]. In particular,

bibliographic coupling was used to study thematic clusters and cur-

rent fronts of research to identify emeging topics, research gaps,

and directions for future research. Certain previous bibliometric

research has utilized similar approaches to examine blockchain re-

search within the banking sector [18], [36], [37], conrming the

relevance and propriety of the methodology used herein.

2.2.2. Systematic Content Review

To comprehensively explore the emerging themes of block-chain

technology in banking, this study adopted a two-phase method-

ological design. Specically, it combined bibliometric analysis with

systematic content review. The mixed-method approach was used

to address the research questions RQ2 and RQ3. By integrating

quantitative and qualitative techniques, the study aimed to synthe-

size dominant research themes, assess how blockchain would impact

banking operations, and ascertain dominant scholarly trends. Sys-

tematic content analysis not only contributed to complementing

bibliometric ndings but also to enhancing the interpretative depth

of the results.

In the rst phase, bibliometric techniques were applied using

VOSviewer in order to visualize the intellectual structure of the

eld. Following the procedure outlined by [38], two science mapping

techniques were used. First, an analysis of keyword co-occurrence

was performed to identify words that frequently co-occur together

in the metadata of articles’ titles, abstracts, and keywords [47].

Consequently, the main research areas, key themes, and emerging

research topics were identied [45]. Second, bibliographic coupling

was employed to cluster articles that share common cited references,

thereby revealing thematically related research streams [

48]. A min-

imum citation threshold of 30 citations per document was applied to

exclude publications with limited scholarly impact. This resulted in

the selection of 69 highly cited papers. Additionally, the 10 highly

cited papers were manually added to ensure conceptual compre-

hensiveness. After duplicate removal and further manual ltering,

the nal dataset of 70 peer-reviewed papers was established as the

foundation for the subsequent qualitative review.

In the second phase, a qualitative content analysis was per-

formed using Braun and Clarke’s framework [49] as follows. First,

each article in the nal dataset was examined and coded to extract

relevant information regarding research objectives, methodological

approaches, core themes, principal ndings, and identied research

gaps. Second, the coded content was grouped into preliminary the-

matic categories based on their conceptual similarities. Thereafter,

these thematic categories were manually rened to ensure concep-

tual relevance and logical coherence within the categorization. For

instance, thematic clusters that have similar central themes (e.g.,

blockchain and cryptocurrency, blockchain and DeFi) were con-

solidated into a common thematic cluster. Finally, the outcomes

derived from the qualitative analysis were cross-validated against

those generated through keyword co-occurrence analysis to enhance

the results of the study.

Methodological Novelty and Contribution

The novelty of the methodological approach of this study resides

in its explicit triangulation and cross-validation framework that

combines bibliometric maps of science with qualitative thematic

analysis. Previous studies in this eld either used descriptive bib-

liometric mapping or a qualitative synthesis, but these studies were

typically based on small samples and treated these methods sepa-

rately. In contrast, this research is designed in three stages: (i) to

identify macro-level thematic structure through quantitative biblio-

metric mapping; (ii) to use systematic qualitative content analysis to

capture in-depth conceptual patterns and research gaps; and (iii) to

cross-validate the results of quantitative and qualitative analysis to

determine both the statistical relationship and conceptual alignment

of those analyses.

The triangulation approach provides greater methodological

strength because it provides a more extensive and functionally re-

liable representation of the research landscape, helping to better

establish a framework for developing theories, as well as plan-

ning future investigations into the impact of blockchain on banking

studies.

S. A. Aladeeb et al.

Methodological Chal lenges and Mitigation

The rapid growth of the literature on blockchain applications

in banking presents several methodological challenges. These is-

sues arise from four dimensions of interrelated challenges: disci-

plinary fragmentation, terminological inconsistency, publication vol-

ume/size/overview, and methodological heterogeneity. Blockchain

research in banking spans broad disciplinary areas, including -

nance, computer science, information systems, law, and regulatory

research, making it dicult to align themes and integrate theo-

ries. Additionally, many overlapping terms exist, including ntech,

digital banking, cryptocurrencies, decentralized nance (DeFi), cen-

tral bank digital currency (CBDC), etc. These multiple terms

signicantly increase the potential for conceptual confusion and

misclassication.

In addition to these diculties caused by the rapid growth in

the number of publications, many dicult processes of literature

screening and synthesis occur when hundreds of literature arti-

cles are reviewed while attempting to keep the reviews analytically

sound. Moreover, the research literature reviewed exhibited con-

siderable methodological dierences, ranging from technical system

architectures and research analysis to policy-oriented and conceptual

frameworks, complicating the synthesis of cross-study data.

To alleviate these issues, the present research develops a triangu-

lated methodological approach that employs bibliometric mapping of

literature using computer analysis tools as well as systematic qual-

itative analysis and manual validation [

50–52]. Triangulating the

methodology allows for increased coverage of the literature reviewed

while providing for increased assurance of analytical integrity and

credibility in addition to conceptual consistency.

In summary, this study’s integrated methodology enhances the

validity and reliability of its ndings by combining quantitative map-

ping, qualitative thematic interpretation, and cross-validation. This

integrative approach strengthens the robustness of the ndings and

enables a holistic understanding of blockchain’s role in banking.

It also provided a solid foundation for identifying future research

directions in this evolving eld.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. General information and performance analysis

The bibliometric analysis revealed 389 documents, published in 269

sources between 2015 and May 2025, authored or co-authored by

1,077 scholars. The principal purpose of collecting this bibliographic

dataset is to provide an overall picture of the scientic literature

that addresses the application of blockchain in banking during this

period. This overview not only identies key publication patterns

but also brings an understanding of the evolution of the eld. Such

mapping is essential for understanding the development of the topic,

as it helps to identify publication patterns, collaborative networks,

and the most active research domains. Moreover, it underscores the

academic relevance of the dataset and provides a foundation for

further analysis.

Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics summarizing the

dataset. In addition, the results illustrate key aspects of research

productivity and collaboration, such as annual publication trends

(Table 2; Figure 2), top productive scientic journals publishing in

the eld (Table 3), top contributing authors (Table 4), and most

active institutions (Table 5),leading countries in publication output

(Table 6), and the highly cited documents (Table 7). These analy-

ses collectively provide a detailed account of the scientic landscape

and support the evaluation of scholarly performance in the eld.

Table 1. Main Information of the Dataset

Description Results

Retrieval Date 12 May 2025

Time-Span 2015–May 2025

Total Publications 389.00

Subject Area:

Business, Management, and Accounting

Economics, Econometrics, and Finance

Social Sciences

Document Type:

Article 274.00

Conference Paper 84.00

Review 31.00

Number of Cited Publications 313.00

Number of Non-Cited Publications 76.00

Total Citations 9354.00

Average Citations per Publication 24.05

Average Citations per Cited Publication 29.89

Average Years from Publication 3.10

Average Citations per Year per Document 4.63

Sources (Journals, Books, etc.) 269.00

Aliations 786.00

Countries 88.00

References 18437.00

Keywords Plus (ID) 1818.00

Author’s Keywords (DE) 1131.00

Authors 1077.00

Publications per Author 0.36

Authors per Publication 2.77

3.1.1. Publication Trends Over Time

Table 2 and Figure 2 illustrate the publication trends over a year

from 2016 to May 2025. The analysis comprises metrics such as

total publications (TP), cumulative publications (CTP), total ci-

tations (TC), and average citations per publication (TC/CTP and

TC/TCP). The data reveal three distinct phases in the evolution

of the research eld: (1) Early emergence and foundational impact

(2016–2018), (2) Expansion and thematic diversication (2019–

2021), and (3) Peak production with initial signs of saturation

(2022–2025).

The initial phase (2016–2018) reects the inception of academic

activity, with four articles published in 2016 being cited 1,249 times

(312.25 per article), indicating foundational signicance. The num-

ber of publications increased from eight in 2017 to 20 in 2018,

reecting growing interest in the potential of blockchain technology

in the banking sector.

In the second phase, between 2019 and 2021, production in-

creased sharply, from 30 in 2019 to 47 papers in 2020, though

decreasing slightly to 41 papers in 2021. Despite the growth be-

ing notable, average citations declined (TC/CTP fell from 8.85 in

2019 to 5.99 in 2021), most likely due to higher participation and

decline of the novelty. This is the stage that points towards the di-

versication of research themes and the decline in the productivity of

2021, possibly impacted by global disruptions such as the COVID-19

pandemic.

The third phase (2022–2025) represents the most productive pe-

riod in terms of publication volume, with annual outputs increasing

from 54 in 2022 to a peak of 78 in 2024. Publications during this

phase constitute over half of the total output, highlighting the area’s

rapid expansion and highest level of publication activity. Although

the TC/CTP ratio fell from 6.53 in 2022 to 1.17 in 2024, this decline

Figure 2. Total Publications (TP) over time (2016–2025). Note: The data for 2025 (33 publications) is incomplete, reecting the data cuto date of May

12, 2025, and therefore does not accurately represent a decline in annual output.

Table 2. Publication Trends Over Time

Year TP PTP CTP TCP TC TC/CTP TC/TCP

2016 4.00 1.00% 4.00 4.00 1249.00 312.25 312.25

2017 8.00 2.00% 12.00 8.00 850.00 70.83 106.25

2018 20.00 5.00% 32.00 19.00 1033.00 32.28 54.37

2019 30.00 12.00% 62.00 28.00 549.00

8.85

19.61

2020 47.00 12.00% 109.00 44.00 2321.00 21.29 52.75

2021 41.00 11.00% 150.00 38.00 899.00 5.99 23.66

2022 54.00 14.00% 204.00 52.00 1333.00 6.53 25.63

2023 74.00 19.00% 278.00 56.00 656.00 2.36 11.71

2024 78.00 20.00% 356.00 53.00 418.00 1.17 7.89

2025 33.00 8.00% 389.00 11.00 46.00 0.12 4.18

TP = Total Publications, PTP = Percentage of Total Publications, CTP = Cumulative Total Publications, TCP = Total Cited

Publications, TC = Total Citations.

is largely attributable to the recency eect, as newer articles have

not yet accumulated signicant citations.

The data for 2025 is partial and represents an artifact of the

data cuto. As of May 12, 2025, only 33 publications were indexed

at this time. So, the apparent decline in output for 2025 constitutes

a methodological artifact rather than a substantive downturn. While

this gure is expected to increase signicantly by the end of the year,

annual publication counts, rather than citation-based indicators, re-

ect a consistent rise in research activity. Moreover, the increasing

diversication of research themes, particularly applied studies inte-

grating blockchain with AI, IoT, and FinTech, is likely to inuence

future citation patterns.

Overall, while publication volumes have risen exponentially,

falling citation metrics indicate the need for yet more innovative and

theory-driven studies. Future studies need to undertake interdisci-

plinary, problem-based approaches to advance the practical uptake

of blockchain in banking contexts.

3.1.2. Leading Scientic Journals Publishing Blockchain

and Banking Research

The most impactful journals that publish research on block-chain

technology within the banking sector are detailed in Table 3, which

presents both productivity measures (Total number of publications)

and impact indicators (Total citations, Average citations per article,

Average publication year, and normalized citation metrics). These

combined measures enable the evaluation of not only the quantity

of output but also the intellectual impact of each journal within the

rapidly changing research environment.

An important observation in Table 3 is that, while Technologi-

cal Forecasting and Social Change and Sustainability (Switzerland)

are at the forefront journals in terms of volume, each journal’s schol-

arly impact varies signicantly. Technological Forecasting and Social

Change exhibits a notably superior citation prole (648 total cita-

tions; 92.57 citations per article), which underscores the journal’s

strong focus on technology adoption, innovation dissemination, and

socio-economic changes, subjects that closely relate to block-chain

research in the nancial sector. Its wide interdisciplinary reader-

ship and emphasis on theory-driven forecasting likely enhance its

visibility and citation across various elds. In comparison, although

Sustainability frequently covers block-chain topics, its more practi-

cal and policy-oriented focus, often aimed at specic sustainability

audiences, leads to lower average citation rates (18.86 per article),

indicating a more localized rather than broad academic inuence.

In contrast, Financial Innovation, despite having published only

ve articles, boasts the highest overall citations (922) and greatest

average impact per article (184.40). This remarkable achievement

illustrates that thematic relevance of a journal, rather than just

the volume of publications, drives academic inuence. The jour-

nal’s concentrated focus on nancial technologies, digital currencies,

and banking change positions it as a primary outlet for signicant

theoretical and empirical contributions, making its articles particu-

larly prominent and often cited across nance, economics, and policy

research communities.

S. A. Aladeeb et al.

Table 3. Leading Scientic Journals Publishing Blockchain in Banking Research

Rank Source Documents Citations Avg. Citations Avg. Year Avg. Norm. Citations

1 Technological Forecasting and So cial Change 7.00 648.00 92.57 2022.29 4.04

2 Sustainability (Switzerland) 7.00 132.00 18.86 2021.57 0.98

3 International Journal of Scientic and Technology Research 6.00 57.00 9.50 2019.67 0.21

4 Financial Innovation 5.00 922.00 184.40 2020.40 1.99

5 Technology Analysis and Strategic Management 4.00 101.00 25.25 2022.75 3.55

6 Journal of Risk and Financial Management 4.00 72.00 18.00 2022.75 1.67

7 IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 4.00 204.00 51.00 2022.00 6.44

8 Frontiers in Blockchain 4.00 93.00 23.25 2021.00 2.01

9 New Economic Windows 3.00 543.00 181.00 2016.00 0.58

10 Journal of Money Laundering Control 3.00 116.00 38.67 2020.00 2.00

11 Journal of Financial Stability 3.00 83.00 27.67 2020.33 0.99

12 Fintech 3.00 85.00 28.33 2023.00 1.15

A similar trend is evident in New Economic Windows, which

attained 543 citations with just three publications. Its early ex-

ploration of blockchain topics (with an average publication year of

2016) enabled its articles to gather citations over an extended pe-

riod, demonstrating the benets of early involvement in emerging

research areas. These foundational studies often serve as essential

reference points for subsequent scholarship.

On the other hand, journals like the International Journal of

Scientic and Technology Research, while comparatively produc-

tive (six publications), exhibit limited citation impact (averaging

9.5 citations per article). This variance likely stems from the jour-

nal’s broader technical audience and its less focused engagement

with nancial or banking communities, leading to reduced cita-

tion engagement within social science and nance-oriented research

networks.

Normalized citation metrics further enhance impact evaluation

by considering publication age. Journals such as IEEE Transac-

tions on Engineering Management (6.44) and Technology Analysis

and Strategic Management (3.55) show strong relative citation

performance given their more recent publication schedules. Their

heightened normalized impact emphasizes the increasing importance

of management- and gover-nance-related perspectives in blockchain

research, particularly at the crossroads of engineering innovation,

organizational strategy, and transformation in the nancial sector.

Overall, these trends suggest that scholarly inuence in the realm

of blockchain-banking research is more inuenced by journal the-

matic alignment, multidisciplinary engagement, early positioning in

specic topics, and theoretical focus rather than merely by pub-

lication frequency. Journals that contextualize blockchain within

wider discussions on nancial governance, innovation management,

regulatory adjustment, and socio-economic change achieve greater

citation visibility than journals that are technically oriented or

narrowly focused on sustainability. This uneven distribution of in-

uence indicates that the intellectual essence of the eld is anchored

in publications that connect nancial theory, policy analysis, and

studies of innovation rather than solely in technically driven or

sustainability-centric journals.

3.1.3. The 10 Most Inuential Authors

Table 4 shows the most prolic authors who have made the largest

academic contributions to blockchain research in the banking sector.

This evaluation considers their productivity, citation impact, nor-

malized inuence, and the strength of their collaborative networks.

These metrics not only identify the most visible researchers but also

show how intellectual leadership and collaboration patterns shape

the eld.

It can be seen that Devi, N. Chitra and Kumari, Anitha are the

most prolic with three papers each and the same citation count

of 105 and 35 average citations per paper. While both have the

same normalized citation score (2.14), only Devi has a sizable total

link strength (19), suggesting more robust collaboration networks.

This suggests that Devi’s inuence goes beyond citation metrics

to include a bridging function between various research teams, en-

couraging cross-pollination of ideas related to adoption, operational

eciency, and governance in blockchain.

In contrast, although Mbaidin, Hisham O. has the same number

of publications of Devi and Kumari, he has lower citations and aver-

age citation per document wit 43 and 14.33 respectively. Moreover,

the author is strongly linked (link strength: 23), suggesting broad

collaborative activity in the eld. This pattern highlights authors

whose main contributions are in interdisciplinary collaboration and

empirical research across multiple countries. This fosters method-

ological diversity but may not yet result in highly cited conceptual

breakthroughs.

A dierent type of intellectual leadership is seen in authors

like Ramzi El-Haddadeh, Nitham Hindi, Vishanth Weerakkody,

and especially Uthayasankar Sivarajah. They achieve notable cita-

tion eciency despite fewer publications. Each of them had two

high-impact papers with over than 100 citations, an average of 55

citations per article, and 2.54 normalized scores, indicating inuence

and visibility. However, Uthayasankar Sivarajah has the highest ci-

tation average (109.5) and a 5.03 normalized citation score, showing

exceptional scholarly impact with fewer papers. He particularly fo-

cuses on governance, data management, and digital transformation

strategies within nancial institutions. These authors help consoli-

date theory by presenting models that link blockchain adoption with

organizational readiness and regulatory issues.

Emerging researchers like Gan, Qingqiu, and Lau, Raymond

Yiu Keung, show strong normalized citation rates of 4.78 despite

their recent publication activity, with an average publication year

of 2024.5. Their rapid accumulation of citations highlights a grow-

ing second wave of leadership focused on algorithmic nance, data

analytics, and the convergence of emerging ntech. This trend in-

dicates a shift in the eld from foundational theoretical work to

application-oriented and interdisciplinary growth.

In summary, the author network structure illustrates a layered

knowledge ecosystem that balances established theorists, network

connectors, and rapidly advancing innovators. Leadership in this

eld is dened not just by the number of publications but also by

the ability to present impactful conceptual frameworks, provide scal-

able empirical evidence, and foster new research initiatives through

collaborative networks. This evolving prole of authorship shows the

maturation of blockchain and banking research into a more unied

yet methodologically diverse academic domain.

3.1.4. The Top 10 Most Productive Institutions

Table 5 presents the leading institutions that have contributed most

to blockchain research in banking in terms of productivity, impact,

Table 4. The Most Inuential Authors

Rank Author TP TC APY ACPP ANC TLS

1 Devi, N. Chitra 3.00 105.00 2022.33 35.00 2.14 19.00

2 Kumari, Anitha 3.00 105.00 2022.33 35.00 2.14 0.00

3 Mbaidin, Hisham O. 3.00 43.00 2023.67 14.33 1.91 23.00

4 Choo, Kim-Kwang Raymond 2.00 63.00 2022.00 31.50 2.14 3.00

5 El-Haddadeh, Ramzi 2.00 110.00 2022.00 55.00 2.54 27.00

6 Gan, Qingqiu 2.00 37.00 2024.50 18.50 4.78 8.00

7 Hindi, Nitham 2.00 110.00 2022.00 55.00 2.54 10.00

8 Lau, Raymond Yiu Keung 2.00 37.00 2024.50 18.50 4.78 3.00

9 Sivarajah, Uthayasankar 2.00 219.00 2022.00 109.50 5.03 13.00

10 Weerakkody, Vishanth 2.00 110.00 2022.00 55.00 2.54 10.00

TP = Total Publications; TC = Total Citations; APY = Average Publication Year; ACPP = Average Citations Per Publication; ANC =

Average Normalized Citations; TLS = Total Link Strength.

and other important indicators such as, citations, average publica-

tion year, average citations per document, and average normalized

citations.

Foremost among them is the Department of Management Studies

at the Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, with 3 papers that gar-

nered 110 citations, achieving an average of 36.67 citations per paper

and an average normalized citation score of 1.32. This reects a high

academic impact and research quality in the feild. Conversely, the

Adnan Kassar School of Business at the Lebanese American Univer-

sity, despite being equally prolic with 3 papers, has a lower average

citation (3.67) and normalized citation score (0.49), revealing a less

widespread scholarly impact.

In addition, certain institutions such as Al Qasimia University,

Mutah University, Abu Dhabi University, and independent institu-

tions such as the Financial and Taxation Consultant, Jordan, both

of which have 2 papers of low citation frequency (average number

of citations per paper of 6) but relatively high normalized citation

scores (1.12), showing greater engagement and increasing popularity

over the last few years (average year of publication: 2024), were also

taken into account.

Most prominently, Spiru Haret University of Romania, with only

2 publications, received 56 citations and the highest normalized cita-

tion score (3.23), indicating the inuence of its work in the discipline.

Similarly, Symbiosis Institute of Digital and Telecom Management

achieved a moderate impact with 21 citations from 2 publications.

In general, the results show geographically widespread and in-

stitutionally varied research eorts. Productivity is spread across

institutions, but citation impact is concentrated in a few, indicating

the distinction between quantity and quality of scholarly production.

3.1.5. The Most Productive and Inuential Countries

Table 6 illustrates the signicant geographical variation in research

contributions, citation impact, and other major indicators, such as

average publication year, average citations, average normalized cita-

tions, and total link strength of blockchain research in the banking

sector.

As shown in Table

6, India is the most prolic and productive

country with 94 documents, but it is lower ranked in citation impact

(average citations per paper with 17.33 ) and normalized citation

score (1.28). This indicates that while it leads in quantity, the overall

impact remains moderate.

In contrast, the United States, with 51 papers, has the highest

total citations (2,847) and a high average citation score (55.82), thus

indicating a high academic impact. Likewise, the United Kingdom,

with a lower productivity of 25 publications, achieves the top aver-

age citations (64.44) and normalized citation score (2.42), reecting

high-quality and highly recognized research output.

China also demonstrates a balanced prole with 24 papers and

an average citation of 47.79, showing a good compromise between

productivity and impact. The United Arab Emirates shows emerging

activity with 21 papers and a good normalized score (1.41), yet still

a moderate average citation per document (12.19).

Other countries, such as Germany, Italy, and Malaysia are

moderately impactful and productive. Jordan and Switzerland, in

contrast, while producing smaller volumes of output (12 and 10

papers, respectively), stand at competitive normalized citation av-

erages (1.15 and 0.82, respectively), indicating quite high-impact

research. Surprisingly, Spain and the Russian Federation have lower

normalized and average citation indicators, reecting limited impact

despite modest research production.

Overall, India produces the most research in quantity, but other

countries like the UK, the US, and China have a greater scientic

impact. These patterns show that there is a global contribution, but

the quality and visibility of research in the eld of blockchain in

banking are uneven.

3.1.6. The Top 10 Most Cited Documents

As we stated above, the dataset is retrieved from the Scopus

database, and as we know, the topic has been investigated in various

contexts by authors from Business, Management and Accounting,

Economics, Econometrics and Finance, and Social Sciences. The

analysis of the top 10 most cited documents in blockchain and

banking research identies the seminal works that have inuenced

academic investigation and applied applications in this multidisci-

plinary research area. These documents span various areas of study,

ranging from nancial innovation to accounting, regulatory studies,

and information systems. Citation counts indicate academic and

intellectual interest, while more complex metrics, such as average

citations per year and normalized citation score, provide a bet-

ter indication of the signicant documents and their comparative

inuence over time and across research elds [53].

In view of this, Table 7 presents the ten most highly cited docu-

ments in our research eld, according to the Scopus database. It is

noted that, nine of the ten most highly cited papers received more

than 200 citations, even though most of them were published less

than four years ago.

Leading the list is Guo and Liang [26] pioneering document enti-

tled ”Blockchain application and outlook in the banking industry,”

published in the Financial Innovation journal, with a total of 706

citations as the most cited document in nance. Its average annual

citation rate of 78.44 indicates a consistently high impact since its

publication, although its normalized citation score of 2.26 suggests

that, despite its high number of citations, its performance compared

to other publications in its eld is more moderate. Nonetheless,

S. A. Aladeeb et al.

Table 5. The Most Inuential Institutions

Rank Institution TP TC APY ACPP ANC

1 Adnan Kassar School of Business, Lebanese American University, Beirut,

Lebanon

3.00 11.00 2023.67 3.67 0.49

2 Dept. of Management Studies, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, New

Delhi, India

3.00 110.00 2023.00 36.67 1.32

3 Al Qasimia University, United Arab Emirates 2.00 12.00 2024.00 6.00 1.12

4 Business Intelligence and Data Analytics Dept., Business School, Mutah Uni-

versity, Jordan

2.00 12.00 2024.00 6.00 1.12

5 Dept. of Economics, College of Economics and Management, Al Qasimia Uni-

versity, Sharjah, UAE

2.00 12.00 2024.00 6.00 1.12

6 Faculty of Economics, Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran 2.00 13.00 2022.50 6.50 0.37

7 Faculty of IT, Abu Dhabi University, UAE 2.00 12.00 2024.00 6.00 1.12

8 Financial and Taxation Consultant, Jordan 2.00 12.00 2024.00 6.00 1.12

9 Spiru Haret University, Romania 2.00 56.00 2023.50 28.00 3.23

10 Symbiosis Institute of Digital and Telecom Mgmt., Symbiosis Intl. (Deemed

Univ.), Pune, India

2.00 21.00 2022.00 10.50 0.43

TP = Total Publications; TC = Total Citations; APY = Average Publication Year; ACPP = Average Citations Per Publication; ANC =

Average Normalized Citations.

Table 6. The Most Pro ductive Countries

Rank Country TP TC APY ACPP ANC TLS

1 India 94.00 1629.00 2022.60 17.33 1.28 48.00

2 United States 51.00 2847.00 2021.35 55.82 1.62 31.00

3 United Kingdom 25.00 1611.00 2022.08 64.44 2.42 43.00

4 China 24.00 1147.00 2022.50 47.79 1.30 20.00

5 United Arab Emirates 21.00 256.00 2022.71 12.19 1.41 12.00

6 Italy 20.00 327.00 2021.70 16.35 0.90 16.00

7 Russian Federation 19.00 169.00 2019.58 8.89 0.29 0.00

8 Germany 18.00 740.00 2021.44 41.11 1.31 8.00

9 Malaysia 14.00 186.00 2022.36 13.29 0.97 19.00

10 Jordan 12.00 103.00 2023.75 8.58 1.15 18.00

11 Spain 11.00 145.00 2021.55 13.18 0.81 0.00

12 Indonesia 10.00 137.00 2022.30 13.70 0.33 2.00

13 Switzerland 10.00 280.00 2021.80 28.00 0.82 5.00

TP = Total Publications; TC = Total Citations; APY = Average Publication Year; ACPP = Average Citations Per Publication; ANC =

Average Normalized Citations; TLS = Total Link Strength.

the work is still inuential owing to its pioneering and general in-

troduction of the revolutionary nature of blockchain for banking,

specically as it pertains to operational eciency and transparency

and transactional security.

On the contrary, Thakor’s [54] article entitled ”Fintech and

banking: What do we know? ranks second in terms of total cita-

tions (601), but outperforms all other documents in terms of average

annual citations (120.20) and the number of normalized citations

(12.17). This suggests that the study has quickly become a leading

reference in its eld, although it has just 4 years since its publi-

cation. This suggests that the study is already a classic reference

in the area. The Journal of Financial Intermediation presents a

solid theoretical model on how ntech, including blockchain tech-

nology, is transforming long-established paradigms in banking. Its

very high normalized citation score also indicates high inuence and

cross-disciplinary adoption, especially in nance, economics, and

regulation studies in banking.

Its third most cited paper, authored by Dai and Vasarhelyi [55],

entitled ”Toward blockchain-based accounting and assurance,” pub-

lished in the Journal of Information Systems, has been cited 532

times. It has a high average of 66.5 yearly citations and a nor-

malized score of 5.01, attesting to its contributory quality as a

connecting publication between accounting theory and blockchain

technology. It oers research that informs discussion about the use

of blockchain to enable auditability and trust in nancial reports,

and is thus a reference work on the research of nancial assurance

with blockchain-based.

An equally signicant contribution is made by Peters and

Panayi [56], entitled ”Understanding modern banking ledgers us-

ing blockchain technologies,” cited 452 times. Its 50.22 times per

year citation rate indicates ongoing interest by researchers, while

its normalized citation of 1.45 indicates moderate impact in its

broader research eld. The signicance of this work lies in its spe-

cic contribution to addressing distributed ledger technology and

smart contracts, and oering insight into blockchain’s technology

foundation from a banking industry perspective.

Additionally, the International Journal of Information Manage-

ment published research by Schuetz and Venkatesh [57] on using

blockchain to drive nancial inclusion in India. The article was cited

297 times with an average annual citation rate of 59.4 and a normal-

ized citation rate of 6.01. This article is clearly very interdisciplinary

in applicability. Its focus on social and developmental implications

of blockchain makes it more relevant in policy development and

nancial inclusion policies, particularly in emerging economies.

With regard to infrastructure and security, although not

banking-focused, Minoli and Occhiogrosso’s [58] article entitled

”Blockchain Mechanisms for IoT Security,” has garnered 285 ci-

tations, an average annual citation of 40.71, and a normalized

Table 7. The Top 10 Most Cited Documents

Rank Authors Year Title Source Document Type TC ACPY NC

1 Ye Guo & Chen Liang 2016 Blockchain application and outlook

in the banking industry

Financial Innovation, 2(1) Original research article 706.00 78.44 2.26

2 Anjan V. Thakor 2020 Fintech and banking: What do we

know?

Journal of Financial Inter-

mediation, 41

Review article 601.00 120.20 12.17

3 Dai J.; Vasarhelyi M.A. 2017 Toward blockchain-based accounting

and assurance

Journal of Information Sys-

tems, 31(3)

Conceptual research article 532.00 66.50 5.01

4 Gareth W. Peters & Efstathios Panayi 2016 Understanding Modern Banking

Ledgers Through Blockchain Tech-

nologies: Future of Transaction

Processing and Smart Contracts on

the Internet of Money

New Economic Windows

(NEW), pp. 239–278

Book chapter 452.00 50.22 1.45

5 Schuetz S.; Venkatesh V. 2020 Blo ckchain, adoption, and nancial

inclusion in India: Research opportu-

nities

International Journal of In-

formation Management, 52

Original research article 297.00 59.40 6.01

6 Daniel Minoli & Benedict Occhiogrosso 2018 Blockchain mechanisms for IoT secu-

rity

Internet of Things (Nether-

lands), 1–2, 1–13

Original research article 285.00 40.71 5.52

7 Zetzsche D.A.; Arner D.W.; Buckley R.P. 2020 Decentralized Finance Journal of Financial Regula-

tion, 6(2), 172–203

Conceptual/policy article 264.00 52.80 5.35

8 Poonam Garg et al. 2021 Measuring the perceived benets of

implementing blockchain technology

in the banking sector

Technological Forecasting

and Social Change, 163

Empirical research article 218.00 54.50 9.94

9 Saurabh Ahluwalia et al. 2020 Blockchain technology and startup

nancing: A transaction cost eco-

nomics perspective

Technological Forecasting

and Social Change, 151

Empirical research article 212.00 42.40 4.29

10 Mohd Javaid et al. 2022 A review of Blockchain Technology

applications for nancial services

BenchCouncil Transactions

on Benchmarks, Standards

and Evaluations, 2(3)

Review article 207.00 69.00 8.39

TC = Total Citations; ACPY = Average Citations per Year; NC = Normalized Citations.

score of 5.52. Its interdisciplinary contribution comes in the form

of providing data transmission protocols that are secure, something

that would be essential to highly technologically advanced banking

systems that are based on Internet-of-Things (IoT) incorporation.

Furthermore, regulatory aspects of blockchain are analyzed in

the most highly-cited paper by Zetzsche, Arner, and Buckley [

59],

entitled ”Decentralized Finance,” which has been cited 264 times.

The article has a yearly average of 52.8 citations and a normal-

ized citation of 5.35, and it illustrates increasing academic interest

in legal and compliance matters of decentralized nancial sys-

tems. Published in the Journal of Financial Regulation, it oers

a critical framework for the examination of blockchain’s legal and

systemic issues and thus is extremely useful to researchers as well as

policymakers.

Empirical understanding of blockchain adoption is presented

in their article ”Measuring the perceived benets of implementing

blockchain in the banking sector,” which has been cited 218 times,

by Garg et al. [

60]. Interestingly, it has a high average citation rate

of 54.5 per year and a signicant normalized citation score of 9.94,

which indicates high use and strong cross-eld inuence. Using struc-

tural equation modeling, the authors assign a numeric value to the

benets of blockchain, such as trust, transparency, and eciency,

and make this study highly applicable to banking professionals.

Parallel to this is the work of Ahluwalia, Mahto, and Guerrero

[61] enhances the knowledge of blockchain technology within the

entrepreneurial nance context through their empirical article ti-

tled ”Blockchain and Startup Finance.” The paper has been cited

212 times at an average rate of 42.4 citations per annum, besides

a normalized citation count of 4.29. The article extends the use of

blockchain from traditional banking institutions to its impact on

startup and venture capital environments through the adoption of

transaction cost economics as a conceptual building block. Round-

ing out the list is the most recent contribution by Javaid et al. [62],

titled ”A Review of Blockchain Applications in Financial Services,”

which accumulated 207 citations within a brief period. With an an-

nual average of 69.0 citations and a normalized citation score of

8.39, the article’s direct impact and growing importance are evi-

dent. The article summarizes the various applications of blockchain

technology in nancial services, reecting the growing demand from

academics and industry experts for comprehensive reviews amid the

rapid development of the Fintech sector.

Taken together, the citation patterns observed suggest that the

inuence within the blockchain-banking literature is more linked to

the capacity to relate technological advancements to broader insti-

tutional, accounting, regulatory, and socio-economic issues than to

purely technological innovation. Works that receive a high num-

ber of citations bring together conceptual theorization (like ntech

transformation), incorporate insights from multiple disciplines (such

as accounting, law, and information systems), and present empiri-

cal evidence that tackles real-world banking issues, including trust,

nancial inclusion, compliance, and eciency. This highlights that

the most impactful articles in academia frame blockchain not merely

as a technical tool, but as a driver for signicant changes in bank-

ing ecosystems. As a result, the structure of citations indicates a

mature eld that is progressively focusing on governance frame-

works, adoption processes, regulatory legitimacy, and organizational

transformation instead of isolated demonstrations of technology.

3.2. Science Mapping

Science mapping examines the relationships among contributors in

a research eld. Particularly, it focuses on patterns of intellec-

tual interaction and structural connections between key scholarly

constituents, such as how sources, countries, institutions, au-

thors, references, keywords, and publications relate to each other

[

46, 63, 64].

The present study uses a range of science mapping techniques,

including co-authorship analysis, co-citation analysis, co-occurrence

analysis, and bibliographic coupling analysis. These methods facili-

tate gaining in-depth knowledge about the evolution of the eld, the

collaborative patterns that characterize it, and the thematic struc-

ture that underpins it [46]. When paired with network visualization

software such as VOSviewer, these methods illustrate the bibliomet-

ric and intellectual structure of the research landscape [41, 45], as

outlined below.

S. A. Aladeeb et al.

pakistan

canada

bangladesh

ukraine

turkey

south africa

saudi arabia

romania

iran

australia

france

switzerland

poland

indonesia

spain

jordan

malaysia

germany

russian federation

italy

united states

india

VOSviewer

Figure 3. International Co-authorship Network of Countries in Blockchain and Banking Research. Node size represents publication volume, link

thickness indicates collaboration intensity, and colors denote distinct col laboration clusters.

3.2.1. Co-authorship of Countries

Co-authorship analysis is a bibliometric technique that is employed

to study patterns of collaboration among authors, institutions, and

countries based on joint publications [65, 66]. At the national level,

it reveals international research collaboration, mapping the global

dispersion of scientic production and the transnational network

structure [

67, 68]. Particularly, the analysis reveals leading coun-

tries, maps geographical patterns of collaboration, and illustrates the

eect of international networks on knowledge production [69, 70].

To explore global collaboration in blockchain research in the

banking sector, we conducted a co-authorship analysis at the coun-

try level using VOSviewer. We included countries that had at least

ve documents and 30 citations. This led to 25 out of 88 countries

meeting the criteria, with 72 links and a total link strength (TLS)

of 105. As shown in Figure 3, the visualization displays six color-

coded clusters, where nodes represent countries and links indicate

the strength and frequency of co-authorships. Node size reects pub-

lication volume, while link thickness shows collaboration intensity,

and TLS quanties a country’s total collaborative strength.

The blue cluster, led by India, comprises the United Arab

Emirates, Jordan, and South Africa, indicating close cooperation

between South Asia and the Middle East. The central position and

large node size of India highlight its high research productivity and

its role as a regional leader in blockchain innovation. The partici-

pation of the United Arab Emirates and South Africa signies an

escalating level of interest in the nancial applications of blockchain

among digitally transforming economies.

The red cluster comprises the United States, China, Italy,

Romania, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Canada, forming a wide in-

tercontinental network. The U.S. stands out for its high research

volume and multiple collaborative ties. This cluster spans North

America, Europe, the Middle East, and South Asia, indicating rich

interdisciplinary exchanges. China and Italy are major contribu-

tors to the technological and regulatory aspects of blockchain, while

Saudi Arabia and Pakistan can point to stronger academic connec-

tions with the West, possibly underpinned by digitization reforms

and plans like the Vision 2030 of Saudi Arabia.

The yellow cluster includes the Russian Federation, Germany,

Switzerland, and Turkey. Though geographically spread across Eu-

rope and Eurasia, these countries show strategic interest in digital

nance and decentralization. Germany and Switzerland lead in

ntech, while Russia and Turkey focus on modernizing nancial

systems, suggesting collaboration based on national strategies for

digital transformation.

Moreover, the purple cluster consists of the United Kingdom,

France, and Iran. The UK is the middle connection between the

Middle East and Western Europe, showing high intra-European co-

operation along with historical scholarly ties to the region. France

and the UK are high-output researchers, while Iran shows up as a

leading Middle Eastern producer of blockchain research. However,

the light blue cluster includes Poland, Spain, and Ukraine. The

nations, while not central, are reective of increasing Eastern and

Southern European engagement in blockchain research. Their inclu-

sion is reective of increased cross-border collaboration as well as a

willingness to adopt blockchain towards economic modernization.

Overall, the ndings of this analysis reveal a dispersed worldwide

and interconnected research landscape. Developed and emerging

economies are actively engaging with blockchain research in banking.

3.2.2. Co-citation of Authors

Co-citation analysis is a bibliometric technique that is applied to ex-

amine the intellectual landscape of a research area through analyzing

how frequently two documents, authors, or sources are cited together

in subsequent works [71]. A specic type of this analysis, Author

Co-citation Analysis (ACA), examines how frequently two authors

appear cited in tandem, therefore reecting the conceptual structure

underlying scholarly communication and conceptual evolution in an

area [72, 73]. An increased frequency of co-citation between two au-

thors implies a tight thematic correspondence or common inuence

on the shaping of specic streams of research [74].

In the current study, to better understand intellectual founda-

tions and underlying blockchain research in the banking context,

an author co-citation analysis was conducted using VOSviewer soft-

ware. We applied a minimum threshold of 25 citations per author,

resulting in the identication of 102 prominent authors out of a total

of 25,779 who met the predened criteria.

As shown in the network map in Figure 4, the authors were dis-

tributed to four distinct clusters, each represented by a dierent

color. This network included 4,921 co-citation links and a total link

strength of 56,680. The authors are shown as nodes within the clus-

ters, while the edges illustrate how they have been co-cited. The

sizes of the nodes indicate the extent of their co-citation. As a re-

sult, authors who are frequently co-cited appear as larger nodes.

This pattern reveals a strong trend in scholarly relationships and

co-citations, along with the overall growth in research for this eld.

The red color is the rst cluster in the network map. It is the

largest and most central cluster and consists of authors like Chen

Y., Chen S., Wang Y., Wang H., Liu J., Zhang Y., and Xu X.

These authors have made major contributions in applying blockchain

technology, digital technology, and information systems to banking

and nance. They are most frequently cited in academic literature,

i.e., they are the foundation of theoretical and empirical research on

blockchain technology in the eld. This cluster is also highly linked

to other clusters, which indicates the intellectual power of the cluster

over other elds.

In contrast, the second cluster, as can be shown by the blue color,

includes prominent authors Kumar S., Khan S., Arner D.W., Zet-

zsche D.A., Thakor A.V., Kauman R.J., and Hassan M.K. These

authors are mainly involved with nancial regulation, law, and

policy matters related to blockchain technology. Their co-citation

network indicates that they concentrate on the risk, governance,

and legal concerns of blockchain implementation in banks. The

uniqueness of the cluster indicates the interdisciplinary connection

of information systems, law, and nance.

The third cluster, shown in green color, consists of authors such

as Nakamoto S., Tapscott D., De Filippi P., Eyal I., Zhang Z., Has-

sani H., Janssen M., Potts J., and El-haddadeh R. They provide an

all-round perspective of the revolutionary role of blockchain tech-

nology in banks. They examine cryptocurrencies, decentralization,

governance, and innovation. Additionally, their co-citation suggests

blockchain research covers a wide range of themes, from technical

to legal, economic, and regulatory domains.

Finally, the fourth yellow color cluster comprises the following

authors: Dwivedi Y.K., Kshetri N., Gupta S., Gunasekaran A., and

Venkatesh V. This cluster also appears to be talking about infor-

mation systems, models of technology adoption, and regulatory

eects of blockchain technology. The cluster suggests that there

is a widening of the research landscape on the implementation of

blockchain technology in bank operations and business designs, with

a concentration on technology adoption and strategic management.

In summary, these ndings will be valuable to other researchers,

IT professionals, nancial service rms, practitioners, and banking

professionals looking to consult with the right experts in related

services.

3.2.3. Keyword Co-occurrence Analysis

Keyword co-occurrence analysis is a widely used bibliometric

method that is employed to map and identify the intellectual struc-

ture and thematic evolution of a research eld. It measures the

frequency with which co-occurring pairs of keywords appear in the

same papers, based on the assumption that higher co-occurrence in-

dicates a stronger conceptual relationship between the terms [47].

This technique enables researchers to identify the primary research

themes, evaluate the conceptual associations, and detect emerging

topics in the literature [45, 75].

In the present study, we conducted a keyword co-occurrence

analysis using VOSviewer software to gain a more profound un-

derstanding of the thematic context of blockchain technology in

the banking sector. This approach has been demonstrated to be

eective in identifying the leading research clusters and their con-

nections. This is based on the frequency of using keywords and how

they co-occur across publications’ titles, abstracts, and keywords.

For this study, a minimum of ve occurrences for an author-

keyword was applied as an inclusion criterion. This was used to

ensure an analytical focus on the most relevant and frequently oc-

curring terms. Of the 1,131 keywords examined, 52 satised this

initial criterion. In the second stage of our research protocol, we

manually rened the dataset of the selected keywords by merging

singular and plural terms, such as ”cryptocurrency” and ”cryp-

tocurrencies,” ”smart contract” and ”smart contracts,” and ”bank”

and ”banks.” We also consolidated and standardized synonyms, in-

cluding ”distributed ledger” and ”distributed ledger technology,”

”ntech” and ”nancial technology,” ”decentralized nance” and

”DeFi,” and ”banking industry” and ”banking sector.” Furthermore,

we eliminated keywords that were not related to our topic, such as

”bibliometric analysis and COVID-19.” Following the data rene-

ment, the 42 keywords were included in the nal analysis. Table

8 presents the most frequently occurring keywords and the data

needed to ascertain areas related to blockchain research in banking.

The 42 keywords yielded 289 links, with a total TLS of 799, and

were organized into six distinct thematic clusters.

Table 8. Top Keywords by Occurrence

Rank Keyword Occurrences TLS

1 blockchain 206.00 373.00

2 ntech 68.00 171.00

3 banking 49.00 125.00

4 blockchain technology 49.00 49.00

5 cryptocurrency 40.00 104.00

6 bitcoin 33.00 92.00

7 articial intelligence 19.00 54.00

8 nancial inclusion 16.00 39.00

9 smart contracts 16.00 30.00

10 nance 14.00 39.00

11 digital banking 13.00 27.00

12 nancial services 13.00 36.00

13 innovation 13.00 40.00

14 security 13.00 31.00

S. A. Aladeeb et al.

wang l.

weber i.

panayi e.

kauffman r.j.

auer r.

bouri e.

zetzsche d.a.

bellavitis c.

sharma r.

hassan m.k.

chen s.

arami m.

li h.

liu y.

huang x.

garg p.

liu j.

el-haddadeh r.

rabbani m.r.

hair j.f.

thakor a.v.

yarovaya l.

li z.

swan m.

sarkis j.

queiroz m.m.

beck r.

gunasekaran a.

corbet s.

kumar a.

li y.

weerakkody v.

tapscott a.

kshetri n.

arner d.w.

zhang h.

de filippi p.

guo y.

li j.

zheng z.

nakamoto s.

kumar s.

xu x.

chen y.

chen x.

venkatesh v.

gupta s.

wang y.

wang h.

VOSviewer

Figure 4. Author Co-citation Network in Blockchain and Banking Research. Node size corresponds to citation inuence, while links indicate co-citation

strength. Colors denote major intel lectual clusters.

The network visualization produced (Figure 5) presents these

clusters with each node representing a keyword, the node size rep-

resenting frequency of occurrence, and lines (edges) representing

co-occurrence relationships. The thickness of the lines is indicative

of the strength of the relationship between terms, with thicker lines

denoting a stronger relationship. The closeness of the lines to each

other is also a helpful way to determine how related they are.

As shown in the network map, the keyword ”blockchain” is the

most central node in terms of frequency of occurrence and inter-

connectivity. This is indicative of its central position in scientic

discourse. Secondary keywords such as ”banking,” ”ntech,” ”cryp-

tocurrency,” and ”Bitcoin,” which are also highly frequent and

highly interconnected, emphasize blockchain’s central position in

discourse regarding digital change in the nance and banking sec-

tor. The visualization (Figure

5) breaks down six distinct thematic

clusters based on the following:

The initial cluster (blue) focuses on cryptocurrencies and de-

centralization, as evidenced by the terms ”blockchain,” ”Bitcoin,”

”cryptocurrencies,” ”decentralization,” ”Ethereum,” ”money,” and

”regulation.” The strong interconnection between these key-

words and ”blockchain” indicates the inherent relationship of

blockchain technology with digital currencies, particularly Bitcoin

and Ethereum, which have always been of academic interest and

a research topic in this eld. Furthermore, the cluster groups crit-

ical words that dene the world of cryptocurrency, since Bitcoin,

Ethereum, and cryptocurrencies in general have a very close link

with terms such as ”decentralization” and ”money.” It is clear that

the literature in this cluster provides a comprehensive overview of

the history and evolution of blockchain technology as applied to

decentralized digital currencies. In addition to this, it provides a

detailed discourse on the regulation of crypto assets, which is an in-

evitable consequence of the disruptive eect that these assets have

on traditional nancial institutions. This cluster reects a wide range

of studies on how blockchain technology can reshape the structure of

money and payment systems, indicating sustained academic interest

in decentralized money innovations.

Conversely, the second cluster (red) focuses on banking in-

novation and technology adoption. This cluster includes both

emerging technology keywords, such as machine learning, arti-

cial intelligence, big data, and the Internet of Things, as well

as banking applications, including technology adoption, cybersecu-

rity, sustainability, and digital banking. Together, these keywords

encapsulate the technological infrastructure necessary to integrate

blockchain technology into banking. Furthermore, this suggests that

researchers are progressively interested in examining the combina-

tion of blockchain with other emerging technologies to re-engineer

banking operations and service delivery. The emphasis on cyberse-

curity and sustainability indicates great concerns about the security

and sustainability of innovation within nancial institutions.

Similarly, the third cluster (in green) includes the keywords

”banking,” ”ntech,” ”nance,” ”nancial services,” ”nancial in-

clusion,” ”crowdfunding,” and ”peer-to-peer lending.” This indicates

an awareness of blockchain technology’s macro-level ramications

on the augmentation of access to and eciency of nancial sys-

tems. The prevalence of the term ”ntech” in this cluster captures

the essence of the transformation in nancial intermediation, high-

lighting the pivotal role of blockchain technology in reengineering

nancial services. Additionally, the intersection of ”ntech” and

”nancial inclusion” suggests a promising research area exploring

blockchain’s potential to address gaps in the banking sector.

Another notable cluster, marked in purple, focuses on trust-

related issues and includes terms such as ”trust,” ”transparency,”

”security,” ”privacy,” ”smart contracts,” and ”banking.” The preva-

lence of these keywords indicates a persistent academic interest in

the technological and ethical dimensions of blockchain technology.

Specically, the focus is on the potential impact of blockchain tech-

nology on trust, privacy, and security in banking and nancial

institutions. This thematic emphasis highlights blockchain tech-

nology’s central role in addressing data integrity and user trust

challenges, both of which are key to maximizing its value in banking

applications.

The fth cluster is represented by light blue and comprises key-

words such as ”digitization,” ”innovation,” ”digital transformation,”

”banking services,” and ”Islamic banking.” These terms pertain to

digital transformation and innovation in the banking sector. This

thematic cluster indicates research trends that investigate the im-

pact of blockchain technology on contemporary banking models with

the aim of diversication and modernization.

The yellow cluster is particularly signicant because it in-

cludes the keywords ”distributed ledger technology,” ”decentralized

nance,” ”nancial regulation,” ”central bank digital currency,”

”cryptocurrencies,” and ”RegTech.” These terms are poised to

dominate future discourse concerning regulation and decentralized

nance (DeFi). ”Regtech” signies the integration of regulatory con-

trol and compliance in blockchain-based banking. The cluster also

highlights the pivotal role of policy and governance mechanisms in

the adoption of blockchain technology in nancial markets.

The network visualization of keyword co-occurrence in (Figure

5) led to the identication of six major clusters, conrming the the-

matic structure of the eld. These clusters show the current research

frontiers and common terms used by scholars. For the nal synthesis

and interpretation of these thematic clusters, please see Section 3.3.

3.2.4. Bibliographic Coupling of Documents

Bibliographic coupling is a bibliometric technique that measures the

similarity between two documents based on their shared references.

The extent of the overlap between references is indicative of the

strength of the implied connection among the documents. This is

because it is assumed that they are discussing the same topics or

drawing on identical intellectual structures [48]. This technique is

particularly useful for identifying stable research streams and the

underlying intellectual structure of a research eld.

The present study used VOSviewer to perform bibliographic cou-

pling analysis and to visualize the intellectual structure of blockchain

literature in the banking sector. Two documents are considered to

be bibliographically coupled if they cite one or more of the common

references. To enhance interpretability and focus on inuential con-

tributions, a minimum of 30 citations per document and a minimum

cluster size of 10 documents were applied to be analytically signi-

cant. The application of this criterion resulted in the selection of 65

articles, which were subsequently organized into four clusters, each

distinguished by a distinct color as shown in Figure 6.

In the resulting network visualization, each node represents an

individual academic paper that has been used in the analysis. The

size of a node is directly proportional to the number of citations it

has received. The presence of larger nodes is indicative of a greater

level of scientic inuence. Lines linking nodes indicate bibliographic

coupling relationships, while the thickness of the lines signies the

number of common citations between the two documents. The thick-

ness of the line is indicative of the strength of the connection, with

thicker lines denoting closer intellectual or thematic relationships.

Moreover, the visualization map supports two important quantita-

tive indicators. It produced 603 bibliographic links among the 65

documents that have demonstrated exceptional scholarly impact, as

evidenced by their substantial citation counts. Additionally, the to-

tal link strength (TLS), calculated as the sum of all individual link

strengths, is 1,226, reecting high levels of connectivity and a com-

prehensive set of blockchain banking studies. The network map in

this case provides valuable insight into thematic connectivity among

highly cited articles. The clustering reects how closely related the

topics are and how references are linked between publications, which

in turn highlights the main themes across the eld.

Figure

6 demonstrates that Thakor’s (2020) work exhibits con-

siderable scholarly inuence, characterized by its substantial node

and cross-cluster edges, thereby establishing a signicant connec-

tion between the domains of mainstream banking and blockchain

literature. Dai (2017), Minoli (2018), and Schuetz (2020) have also

been revealed to be central and highly connected nodes, forming a

dense core within the red cluster. The signicant overlap between

these elds could potentially indicate an underlying contribution,

particularly to blockchain technology and nancial applications. In

contrast, Auer (2022), Rehman (2023), and Kumar (2018) have fo-

cused their attention on peripheral areas, suggesting the existence

of niches or novel research avenues that are less directly connected

to the central literature. The peripheral nodes in this case reect the

growing bifurcation of topics such as DeFi and cryptocurrency regu-

lation. As shown in Figure 6 6, the map visualization demonstrates

the following clusters:

Cluster 1 (Red) is dominated by inuential documents, includ-

ing Dai (2017), Peters (2016), Schuetz (2020), Alhuwalia (2020),

Hooper (2020), Shoaib (2020), and Cuccuru (2017). The cluster

forms the theoretical basis of the eld and focuses on blockchain

technology infrastructure, settlement processes, transparency, au-

ditability, and value creation within nancial systems. This cluster

constitutes a pivotal theoretical construct, establishing intricate

internal relationships and exhibiting notable coupling strength.

Cluster 2 (Green), to which Thakor (2020), Minoli (2028), Chen

(2017), Bayram (2022), Naimi-Sadigh (2022), Sangwan (2020), and

Kimani (2020) belong, is characterized by its high level of inter-

connectedness and its tendency to explore blockchain convergence

with FinTech innovation and nancial inclusiveness for transform-

ing banking services. This tendency is underpinned by a focus on

empirical rationales and case-study ndings.

Cluster 3 (Blue) consists of the following documents: Javaid

(2022), Khalil (2022), Menon (2024), Elbashbishy (2022), Choo

(2020), Rehma (2023), and Schlatt (2022). This cluster emphasizes

digital transformation, service innovation, and customer-focused

approaches to blockchain banking. The signicant number of con-

nections within this cluster indicates the presence of an emergent

yet cohesive scholarly conversation.

Cluster 4 (yellow) is led by Garg (2021), Osmani (2021), Kumar

(2018), Le Nguyen (2018), and Auer (2022). This cluster presents

a network that also focuses on blockchain adoption models, con-

sumer trust, and theories of innovation diusion. This cluster is

grounded in extant literature on the behavior and diusion of in-

novation, thereby establishing a relationship at both technical and

organizational levels.

The high interconnectivities among clusters emphasize the in-

terdisciplinary nature of blockchain research in banking, due to the

convergence of technology, economics, regulation, and behavioral

perspectives. The prevalence of strong coupling relationships and

numerous thematic avenues also suggests that, despite the fact that

the eld is still in its infancy, it has attained some level of maturity

with well-dened but interrelated subelds.

S. A. Aladeeb et al.

trust

p2p lending

ethereum

cybersecurity

banking services

technology adoption

regulation

money

islamic banking

financial regulation

decentralization

privacy

big data

banks

transparency

decentralized finance

iot

distributed ledger technology

digitalization

banking sector

security

innovation

financial services

digital banking

finance

smart contracts

financial inclusion

artificial intelligence

bitcoin

cryptocurrency

banking

fintech

blockchain

VOSviewer

Figure 5. Keyword Co-o ccurrence Network of Blo ckchain and Banking Research. Node size reects keyword frequency, link strength indicates

co-occurrence intensity, and clusters represent dominant thematic areas.

3.3. Content Analysis and Thematic Clustering

In order to address Research Question 2 (RQ2), this section presents

a qualitative thematic analysis of literature on blockchain tech-

nology in banking, which was systematically performed with the

aim of identifying the main themes and providing a comprehensive

understanding of the research landscape. Instead of repeating the

bibliometric analyses provided in Section 3.2, this section builds

on those quantitative ndings to provide contextual interpretation,

conceptual validation, and thematic coherence.

As outlined in the research methodology section, the initial

identication of the major themes was derived using two methods:

keyword co-occurrence and bibliographic coupling (as described in

Sections 3.2.3 and 3.2.4). Keyword co-occurrence and bibliographic

coupling highlight the closest relationships in terms of their relation-

ship, or co-occurrence with each other, based on the frequency with

which they were cited by authors and published in peer-reviewed

journals [48, 76].

The previously described bibliometric research methods are help-

ful for creating a high-level map of the research domain. However,

they do not provide a detailed explanation of the substantive con-

tent within the identied thematic clusters. To address this gap in

the literature, we conducted a qualitative content analysis to syn-

thesize, triangulate, and validate the mapped bibliometric thematic

clusters.

To achieve this qualitative synthesis, we employed Braun and

Clarke’s thematic analysis framework [49]. First, we identied a

dataset of 70 articles selected in previous sections of this paper. We

then reviewed the articles manually to determine if the thematic

clusters contained similar semantic meanings and if the cluster con-

tents were conceptually consistent. Finally, we examined whether

the thematic clusters contained relevant theories.

As illustrated in Table

9, this methodological approach yielded

six robust thematic clusters that collectively dene the intellec-

tual structure of blockchain research in the banking sector from

2015 to May 2025. These thematic clusters represent the analytical

framework through which to understand how blockchain inuences

nancial intermediation, business processes, compliance with reg-

ulation, innovation strategy, trust creation, and integration with

next-generation technology.

The following discussion focuses on the conceptual signicance

of these themes, providing a concentrated and analytical summary

of the key intellectual trends in the eld. This fullls the mandate

of the systematic content review phase.

3.3.1. Cluster 1: Blockchain Applications for

Transforming Banking Operations and Financial

Intermediation.

This cluster represents the most foundational and established body

of literature on blockchains in banking, focusing on their ability to

improve eciency, smooth transaction frictions, or transform core

banking systems. More conceptually, the literature in this stream is

concerned with the idea that the value of blockchains is not found

in isolated pilot projects but rather in their integration into back-

oce functions, interbank settlement mechanisms, and audit and

compliance processes.

Foundational studies, such as [55, 56], establish the theoretical

frameworks that describe how blockchain technology helps automate

elbashbishy (2022)

rjoub (2023)

gan (2024)

rehman (2023)

andrian (2018)

auer (2022)

khalil (2022)

saheb (2021)

schlatt (2022)

hooper (2020)

pal (2021)

naimi-sadigh (2022)

patel (2022)

cuccuru (2017)

sangwan (2020)

osmani (2021)

kumar (2018)

ahluwalia (2020)

garg (2021)

minoli (2018)

schuetz (2020)

dai (2017)

thakor (2020)

VOSviewer

Figure 6. Do cument–Bibliographic Coupling in Blockchain and Banking Research. Nodes represent documents, node size reects citation inuence, links

indicate bibliographic coupling strength, and colors represent major intellectual and thematic clusters.

Table 9. Identied Thematic Clusters in Blockchain Banking Research.

No. Cluster Thematic Main Themes Sample References

1 Blockchain Applications for Transform-

ing Banking Operations and Financial

Intermediation

Real-time accounting, automation, reconcili-

ation, operational eciency, startup nance,

and cost reduction.

[26], [55, 56],[61, 62],[77–80]

2 Decentralized Finance (DeFi) and Cryp-

tocurrencies Enabled by Blockchain

DeFi, ICOs, remittances, nancial decentral-

ization, ethics of crypto, speculative behav-

ior.

[81–87]

3 Blockchain as an Enabler of Digital and

Financial Technology Convergence

Integration with IoT, AI, ML, FinTech, KYC,

smart contracts, and digital ID; enhancing

automation and inclusion.

[46], [54], [58], [88–92]

4 Trust-Related Dimensions in Blockchain-

Based Banking

Trust, transparency, data privacy, organiza-

tional condence, strategic alignment, adop-

tion barriers.

[

1], [60], [91], [93–96],

5 Regulatory, Legal, and Institutional

Frameworks for Blockchain Governance

Smart contracts and law, compliance, anti-

money laundering (AML), CBDCs, DeFi reg-

ulation, policy adaptation.

[59], [97–101]

6 Strategic Modernization of Banking

Business Model Enabled by Blockchain

Disruption, competitive strategy, sandboxes,

sustainable development.

[16], [37], [102]

banking ledgers, enhances settlement eciency and reconciliation

accuracy, and improves auditability. This technology also enables

continuous quality assurance and real-time accounting systems.

Building on this conceptual foundation, empirical evidence, notably

from the Sponta Banca initiative, shows that blockchain frame-

works signicantly reduce settlement timeframes, enhance data

traceability, and increase the reliability of interbank data exchange

[77].

A large body of literature on this cluster, such as works by

[26, 62, 80, 103, 104], consistently emphasizes the advantages of

blockchain technology. Compared to traditional systems, blockchain

technology enhances operational eciency in terms of cost savings,

risk mitigation, transaction security, transparency, and privacy.

Also, this technology helps minimize information asymmetry and

startup capital costs [61]. These benets extend beyond payments to

credit information systems, international settlements, and broader

nancial data networks. This reinforces the idea that blockchain

technology is fundamental rather than limited in application.

Furthermore, this cluster emphasizes the strategic and organiza-

tional factors that facilitate successful blockchain implementation.

S. A. Aladeeb et al.

Research using technology adoption models [79] and innovation ca-

pability frameworks [105] identies critical factors that mediate the

operational eectiveness of blockchain technology, including trust,

management commitment, and resource readiness. Furthermore,

studies focusing on emerging markets [78, 106] indicate that banks’

ability to achieve eciency improvements is signicantly aected by

institutional maturity and technological infrastructure.

Overall, these ndings underscore the importance of blockchain

technology as a key tool capable of reducing operational costs,

automating complex verication tasks, and promoting resilient -

nancial systems with low response times. However, the studies also

point to ongoing challenges, particularly with regard to scalability

and institutional readiness, which continue to aect the speed and

scope of practical implementation.

3.3.2. Cluster 2: Decentralized Finance (DeFi) and

Cryptocurrencies Enabled by Blockchain

This thematic cluster focuses on an increasingly signicant body

of research that examines blockchain technology as the core infras-

tructure for decentralized nance (DeFi) and cryptocurrency-driven

nancial systems. Theoretically, research presents blockchain as a

tool that eliminates intermediaries in conventional nancial oper-

ations by allowing direct peer-to-peer value exchange, automating

processes thr-ough smart contracts, and fostering transparent nan-

cial frameworks that function independently of central authorities.

The core idea that emerges from this stream is that decentralized -

nance not only improves current banking processes but also radically

challenges traditional models of nancial intermediation.

Groundbreaking research indicates that decentralized nance of-

fers an alternative nancial structure capable of replicating essential

banking activities or services, such as lending, borrowing, and as-

set trading, through decentralized protocols that are governed by

code rather than traditional institutions [

81]. This viewpoint is fur-

ther reinforced by theoretical contributions that depict blockchain

as a “trust protocol,” highlighting its function in enabling trans-

parency, immutability, and the automated execution of nancial

transactions [86]. Collectively, this body of literature lays the the-

oretical groundwork for comprehending how decentralized systems

challenge conventional banking frameworks.

Furthermore, empirical and analytical studies within this the-

matic cluster reveal a more nuanced and diverse landscape. While

blockchain-based money transfer systems and tokenized nancial in-

struments show the potential to reduce costs and increase eciency,

evidence suggests that adoption of cryptocurrencies is often driven

by speculative behavior rather than dissatisfaction with traditional

banking services [

85, 87]. Furthermore, research highlights persis-

tent concerns about market volatility, governance ambiguity, and

regulatory uncertainty, which continue to shape the risk prole of

decentralized nance (DeFi) systems [

82–84].

In addition to technical and economic factors, this research high-

lights the ethical, behavioral, and institutional consequences of

DeFi. Studies focusing on accountability, nancial inclusion, and

ethical responsibilities caution that the decentralization of nan-

cial authority introduces new challenges associated with consumer

protection, systemic risk, and regulatory supervision [82, 83, 107].

These ndings imply that the transformative capacity of DeFi is

closely connected to governance and public policy factors.

In summary, these studies arm that decentralized nance

(DeFi) and cryptocurrencies signify a groundbreaking extension

of blockchain technology with the potential to transform nan-

cial intermediation. However, the research notes that the long-term

viability of DeFi and its integration into mainstream banking sys-

tems depends on establishing regulatory frameworks, governance

structures, and empirical evaluations of systemic risks.

3.3.3. Cluster 3: Blockchain as an Enabler of Digital and

Financial Technology Convergence

This thematic cluster includes studies that look at blockchain as

a fundamental infrastructure that supports and enhances the func-

tionality of other emerging digital and nancial technologies, such

as articial intelligence (AI), machine learning (ML), the Internet of

Things (IoT), FinTech platforms, smart contract applications, and

digital identity systems. Conceptually, the literature in this stream

portrays blockchain not as an isolated solution but as a coordina-

tion and trust layer that improves interoperability, automation, and

data integrity across complex digital ecosystems.

Key contributions within this cluster highlight the potential of

blockchain to reshape nancial value chains by facilitating decentral-

ized data exchange, automated decision-making, and secure identity

management [54]. In addition to nancial services, this stream also

highlights the role of blockchain technology in securing Internet of

Things (IoT) systems by preventing data manipulation and enabling

decentralized control, particularly in environments that require high

levels of reliability and trust [58]. These studies portray blockchain

as a complementary technology that enhances the reliability and

transparency of data-driven nancial services while paving the way

for innovative digital intermediation. In this context, blockchain

technology enables the secure integration of diverse technologies that

typically operate in isolated locations.

Empirical studies further indicate that the convergence of

blockchain with AI, big data analytics, cloud computing, and mobile

banking technologies can lead to signicant performance enhance-

ments in the delivery of nancial services, especially in lending, risk

assessment, and customer onboarding processes [89, 90, 92, 107]. Ev-

idence from banking applications points out that such technological

convergence improves predictive accuracy, operational scalability,

and nancial inclusion, particularly for small and medium-sized

enterprises and underrepresented populations.

A notable subtheme within this cluster focuses on digital iden-

tity management and automated compliance processes. Research on

blockchain-based self-sovereign identity and smart contract–enabled

Know Your Customer (KYC) processes shows signicant advances

in privacy protection, cost-eectiveness, and regulatory compliance

[

91]. Similarly, research on block-chain-enabled access control mech-

anisms highlights its potential to improve data management and

security across interconnected digital platforms [88]. These applica-

tions demonstrate blockchain’s potential to address long-standing

ineciencies in identity verication and data governance within

nancial institutions.

In summary, this cluster emphasizes the importance of

blockchain as a key driver of technological convergence in digital

nance. However, the literature also indicates ongoing challenges

related to the system’s compatibility, organizational coordination,

and institutional compatibility. However, the literature also empha-

sizes ongoing challenges concerning system interoperability, regu-

latory harmonization, and compatibility. These limitations imply

that the advantages of blockchain integration hinge on supportive

institutional frameworks and the maturity of related technologies.

3.3.4. Cluster 4: Trust-Related Dimensions in

Blockchain-Based Banking

This cluster synthesizes literature examining the impact of trust

on the use of blockchain technology in banking. Cryptographic

verication and decentralized consensus have often led to charac-

terizing blockchain as a ”trustless” technology; however, existing

studies continually highlight the importance of trust between orga-

nizations, user condence, and the legitimacy of institutions when

implementing blockchain within the nancial sector. From a concep-

tual framework, research within this stream illustrates that whilst

blockchain does not remove trust, it re-establishes it, moving it from

centralized intermediaries to the technology itself, to governance

structures, and to the institutions.

Empirical research indicates that, for both users and banks, per-

ceived usefulness, transparency, and security are strong motivators

for the adoption of blockchain technology, while technical capabil-

ity is not as signicant [1, 60, 93]. These results indicate that both

types of trust (in technology and in the institution) interact with

each other rather than exist separately.

A second theme in this cluster discusses blockchain’s eects on

increasing transparency and providing customers with greater data

integrity and privacy. The research has indicated that the imple-

mentation of blockchain-based architectures can decrease the level

of information asymmetry between lenders and borrowers, provide

an increased level of auditing capabilities, and create greater levels

of condence in nancial transactions through various regulatory

processes, including lending [95, 96]. However, the literature points

out that certain organizational barriers to establishing trust exist

within nancial industries, such as resistance to changing current

ways of distributing credit and the lack of standardization, and the

uncertainty regarding accountability, i.e., which party or parties are

ultimately responsible in any given transaction [94].

Another prominent sub-theme is connected to digital identity

and the privacy-preserving elements of the associated trust mech-

anism. Research examining digital identity management through

blockchain and the application of KYC frameworks has illustrated

that decentralized identity models will augment user control over

their personal data and enable compliance with regulatory KYC re-

quirements, while also assisting banks and regulators in forming a

greater degree of institutional trust [

91]. Furthermore, current re-

search has demonstrated that the manner in which a digital identity

is constructed has a direct impact on the level of trust between

banks, regulatory authorities, and their customers.

In summary, the literature supporting this stream clearly es-

tablishes trust as a multi-dimensional construct that acts as an

intermediary factor in the adoption of blockchain technology in the

nancial industry. While blockchain technologies provide a structure

to increase transparency and security, the literature conrms that

accepting blockchain technology into an organization must reach the

appropriate balance between the institution’s expectations regard-

ing the reliability of the technology, the organizational readiness to

use the technology, the availability of clear laws and regulations re-

lated to the use of the technology, and the overall level of acceptance

by society at large.

3.3.5. Cluster 5: Regulatory, Legal, and Institutional

Frameworks for Blockchain Governance

This thematic cluster synthesizes research on the impact of regula-

tions, laws, and institutional frameworks on the use and adoption

of blockchain technology in nancial institutions. In theory, and

according to the literature in this stream, blockchain technology

contributes to greater transparency, process automation, and in-

creased eciency. However, institutions are unable to fully leverage

this potential due to the uncertainty surrounding the regulation of

this technology and because the current limited regulatory and legal

structures are unable to keep pace with the transformation brought

about by blockchain technology.

This theme focuses primarily on how enforcement and gover-

nance issues related to blockchain applications and the use of smart

contracts are evolving. Many researchers point to numerous areas

where the mechanisms for creating automatically enforced records

conict, as well as many unresolved issues related to accountability,

jurisdiction, and the enforceability of programming-based agree-

ments [97]. These challenges illustrate the diculty of applying

standard regulatory structures to decentralized nancial systems.

Other important areas in this thematic cluster are compliance

and risks that may threaten the integrity of the nancial system and

the systemic risks of blockchain technology. The use of blockchain

technology for pseudonyms in nancial transactions poses a poten-

tial dilemma for nancial regulators [73] [99, 74]. The ease of creating

anonymous accounts gives users easier access to money laundering

[98]. At the same time, technologies enabled by blockchain, such

as automated reporting, automated audit trails, and early warning

systems, enhance transparency and regulatory eectiveness [

100].

Additionally, studies indicate that regulatory approaches are

necessary to support blockchain technology innovations. Regula-

tory sandboxes serve as tools for managing the relationship between

innovation and risk through controlled testing, contributing to op-

portunities for learning, public policy development, and institutional

adaptation [26]. Researchers are also exploring ways to integrate

regulation into decentralized nance (DeFi) applications, emphasiz-

ing the need to incorporate governance and compliance mechanisms

into system design as a means of mitigating the risks associated with

decentralization [59].

Finally, studies on central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) show

how the introduction of blockchain technology has prompted pub-

lic authorities to develop hybrid governance models. Evidence from

digital currency projects shows central banks’ eorts to combine

technological advances with centralized oversight to achieve nancial

stability objectives and ensure the eective transmission of monetary

policy [101].

In conclusion, this research corpus reinforces the three essential

ingredients for the long-term success of blockchain technology in

the banking sector: regulatory clarity, institutional exibility, and

adaptive governance. In all three areas, the literature shows that

sustainable governance of blockchain technology requires a balance

between providing an environment conducive to innovation, ensuring

legal certainty for consumers, and maintaining systemic nancial

stability.

3.3.6. Cluster 6. Strategic Modernization of Banking

Business Model Enabled by Blockchain

This thematic cluster focuses on the role of blockchain as a mecha-

nism for modernizing conventional business models in the banking

industry, specically as a type of strategic transformation. While

much research refers to blockchain for its greater operational e-

ciency, the literature in this stream points out that blockchain’s

inuence will create long-term economic and social governance sys-

tems by creating new biases toward competition and allowing for

entirely new nancial service architectures.

The literature in this cluster collectively conceptualizes

blockchain technology as disruptive rather than complementary to

existing systems and processes. This body of literature recognizes

that blockchain platforms disrupt the traditional centralized struc-

ture of the banking industry by enabling the delivery of new services

to customers and allowing peer-to-peer interactions to create value

without going through a bank or intermediary. Consequently, banks

are under increased pressure to reevaluate their strategic positioning,

organizational structure, and competitive response to their evolving

roles in the digital nancial service environment [

16, 37].

S. A. Aladeeb et al.

In addition, this cluster of research has further explored how

business model innovation driven by blockchain technology can

support nancial inclusion and global sustainable development.

Studies have identied ways in which blockchain can provide

expanded access to nancial services, decrease transaction costs, and

improve transparency in areas such as payments, savings, credit,

and insurance, particularly inunderserved areas and regions [102].

However, the literature of this cluster has also emphasized that,

for these potential strategic benets to be realized, a supporting

institutional framework is necessary.

In general, this cluster validates the assertion that blockchain is a

strategic enabler of banking modernization, encompassing more than

incremental process improvements. That said, the ndings also indi-

cate that the eect of blockchain on banking ultimately depends on

how well nancial institutions use and integrate the new technology

into their organizational strategies and adapt to achieve organiza-

tional compliance and advance organizational goals in a changing

economy and broader social structure.

4. Research Implications

4.1. Theoretical Implications

This review enhances blockchain adoption theory by broadening pri-

marily individual-level acceptance models (e.g., TAM, UTAUT) and

organization-centered readiness viewpoints (e.g., TOE, RBV) into

a multi-tiered, ecosystem-based comprehension of blockchain dis-

semination in tightly regulated nancial contexts. The bibliometric

clustering demonstrates that blockchain adoption in the banking sec-

tor is inuenced not only by technological preparedness or perceived

value but also by the interplay of regulatory legitimacy, institutional

trust, cross-organizational interoperability, and strategic resource

management throughout nancial networks. This observation re-

nes traditional technology adoption models by highlighting that

disruptive nancial technologies face diusion constraints imposed

by governance frameworks and regulatory compliance demands, re-

sulting in adoption pathways that are fundamentally dierent from

those seen in cons-umer-oriented digital technologies.

Additionally, the thematic evolution indicates a theoretical shift

within the literature from initial techno-optimistic narratives to an-

alytical perspectives that focus on institutional, risk-oriented, and

governance issues. This progression marks a shift from exploratory

research on technology diusion to integrated frameworks that re-

gard blockchain as a facilitator of organizational transformation

rather than simply a discrete operational tool. Therefore, this review

presents a cohesive conceptual framework that incorporates tech-

nological, organizational, regulatory, and ecosystem dynamics into

a comprehensive explanatory model for blockchain-driven nancial

innovation.

By synthesizing bibliometric ndings with qualitative thematic

analysis, this study presents an established, multi-level framework

that describes the process by which the banking sector adopts

blockchain technology as a broader ecosystemic and governance-

driven process rather than a technology-driven phenomenon.

4.2. Managerial Implications

In addition to outlining technological advantages, the current nd-

ings suggest a strategic rethinking of blockchain as a tool for

organizational transformation rather than a mere digital upgrade.

By synthesizing insights from bibliometric and thematic clusters,

this research shows that the success of adoption is more dependent

on banks’ capacity to implement coordinated process reengineering,

cross-unit integration, and alignment of institutional governance

than on technical installation.

The thematic clusters that highlight operational eciency, cost

savings, and process automation imply that blockchain should be

viewed not just as a technological asset but also as a driver of op-

erational reorganization. Therefore, banking managers are urged to

re-evaluate current workows and identify areas where distributed

ledger technologies can optimize accounting processes, enhance rec-

onciliation accuracy, and decrease overhead expenses through smart

contract automation [55, 62].

Moreover, the ndings stress the growing importance of security,

transparency, and trust in modern banking practices. With increas-

ing cyber threats and regulatory compliance demands, blockchain-

based systems provide solutions for ensuring data integrity, tracing

audit trails, and automating contract enforcement. These fea-

tures are particularly pertinent to Know Your Customer (KYC)

and Anti-Money Laundering (AML) compliance frameworks, where

blockchain applications can support regulatory adherence while

simultaneously enhancing institutional credibility [98, 103].

Similarly, the rise of decentralized nance (DeFi) and token-

based ecosystems indicates a fundamental shift in banking busi-

ness models. As a result, managers must look beyond incremen-

tal enhancements to investigate new service architectures, such

as peer-to-peer intermediation platforms, blockchain-enabled pay-

ment systems, and digital asset tokenization. This shift requires

innovation-driven leadership cultures, investment in blockchain-

related expertise, and strategic alliances with ntech developers to

maintain a competitive advantage.

Lastly, the noted decrease in citation impact alongside increasing

publication volumes highlights the need for more practically oriented

blockchain initiatives. Banking leaders must connect blockchain

adoption to clearly dened institutional objectives, quantiable

performance metrics, and stepwise implementation strategies to en-

sure that investments yield tangible benets rather than remaining

symbolic or experimental.

In summary, these managerial implications illustrate that the

adoption of blockchain is primarily a challenge of leadership, gover-

nance, and change management, rather than solely a decision related

to technological procurement.

4.3. Practical Implications

From a practical viewpoint, this review indicates that blockchain

technology generates its most signicant benets when it is inte-

grated within regulatory and transactional frameworks rather than

operated as a standalone pilot initiative. The most pronounced em-

pirical focus in the literature pertains to cross-border settlements

and interbank transaction clearing, where ineciencies are still com-

mon. Incorporating blockchain into these areas has the ability to

speed up settlement times, lower operational expenses, and reduce

the risks of fraud [

26, 56, 60].

Concurrently, blockchain provides capabilities for automating

regulatory processes and managing identities. Smart contracts and

decentralized identity systems can improve compliance precision and

operational transparency, yielding considerable cost savings in ful-

lling KYC, AML, and nancial reporting requirements [

80, 98].

Therefore, regulatory bodies and nancial institutions are urged

to consider RegTech-driven blockchain solutions not merely as

additional controls but as comprehensive compliance frameworks.

The literature also highlights the inclusive potential of

blockchain, especially via DeFi-enabled micronance platforms,

crowdfunding opportunities, and mobile-focused peer lending

initiatives[59, 85, 108]. Such models create avenues for underserved

communities to obtain nancial services without reliance on tra-

ditional intermediaries. Implementation eorts should, therefore,

prioritize areas with high rates of nancial exclusion, particularly

in emerging and developing economies. For technology developers

and consulting agencies, the insights point to key areas for develop-

ment that include secure audit platforms, green nance traceability

systems, decentralized asset management frameworks, and interop-

erable payment solutions. Collaborative design partnerships with

nancial institutions are essential to ensure that technological mod-

els closely correspond with sector-specic regulatory and operational

needs.

Ultimately, the eective implementation of blockchain in the

banking sector necessitates not only experimental adoption but

also ongoing institutional coordination that encompasses regula-

tory dialogue, workforce education, governance adaptation, and

strategic oversight. Thus, the full potential of blockchain is real-

ized when technical advancements are aligned with organizational

preparedness and policy coherence.

5. Conclusion and Future Research

5.1. Conclusion

This research comprehensively examined the evolving intellectual

landscape and thematic development of blockchain studies within

the banking industry from 2015 to 2025 using a hybrid approach

that combines bibliometric analysis with qualitative systematic syn-

thesis. The analysis of 389 peer-reviewed articles highlighted distinct

developmental stages—from initial conceptual exploration to the-

matic broadening and into the current phase of applied governance

and integration studies.

An analysis of geographic contributions revealed disparities, with

the majority coming from India, the United States, and the United

Kingdom, while newer research centers in China, the United Arab

Emirates, and various parts of Europe are progressively inuencing

the empirical direction of the eld. At the levels of institutions and

authorship, research networks show both fragmentation and cross-

regional collaboration, indicating that global integration in research

is inconsistent.

Six key thematic clusters delineate the structure of disciplinary

knowledge: nancial intermediation and operational eciency, de-

centralized nance (DeFi) and cryptocurrencies, convergence of

blockchain technology, infrastructures for trust and transparency,

regulatory and governance frameworks, and modernization strate-

gies in banking. Together, these aspects characterize blockchain

as not just a standalone technological x but as an integrated

transformation platform that concurrently impacts organizational

frameworks, regulatory systems, and nancial ecosystems.

Although the volume of publications is on the rise, the literature

remains empirically scattered. Studies focusing on large-scale indus-

try adoption are limited, the interactions between blockchain and

complementary technologies (such as AI and IoT) are insuciently

theorized, and long-term evaluations of nancial stability and sys-

temic risk are scarce. Governance research, especially in areas of

regulatory enforcement and international coordination, is also still

underexplored.

In addition to mapping thematic growth, this review oers an

integrative theoretical framework based on our synthesis of the

six thematic clusters. This framework improves our understanding

of blockchain adoption by presenting it as an innovation pro-

cess inuenced by regulatory legitimacy, organizational governance,

and ecosystem interoperability, rather than merely a technical

event. This integrative view distinguishes the current review from

previous bibliometric analyses because it clearly articulates the

causal relationships connecting our validated knowledge structure

to the broader agenda of organizational transformation, regulatory

alignment, and strategic value creation in nance.

As a result, this study provides a cohesive theoretical groundwork

for future empirical research and oers practical insights for banking

professionals and policymakers as they navigate the implementation

of blockchain technologies in regulatory environments undergoing

transition.

5.2. Future Research Directions

To improve our understanding of this research area, more research

should be conducted on the six thematic clusters discussed earlier.

Since research on blockchain technology in the banking sector is in

its infancy, identifying and dening possible areas for future research

is crucial. These research directions are derived from existing liter-

ature and reect the gaps, constraints, and prospects identied by

previous researchers.

Existing studies have identied that blockchain has the potential

to transform operational processes in the banking sector for greater

eectiveness, nancial inclusion, and decentralized nance (DeFi),

as well as to completely modernize business models [55, 81, 86].

However, serious issues remain regarding regulatory ambiguity [59],

interoperability [26], adoption of trust [93], and integration into

future-proof technologies [90]. Thus, future research must bridge

these gaps through empirical, interdisciplinary, and cross-regional

studies.

Table 10 shows directions reecting both conceptual and practi-

cal priorities. These directions provide a research map for charting

blockchain scholarship and positioning policymakers, nancial insti-

tutions, and technology providers toward the development of secure,

ethical, and scalable distributed ledger technology applications.

5.3. Limitations of the Study

Despite providing an overall bibliometric and thematic analysis, this

study has some limitations that should be acknowledged. First, the

dataset was derived exclusively from the Scopus database. Although

Scopus provides the widest coverage of peer-reviewed journals re-

lated to nance, management, and information systems research,

the exclusion of other databases (such as Web of Science, IEEE

Xplore, and Google Scholar) may have resulted in the omission

of some relevant publications, particularly conference proceedings

and technically oriented studies. Nevertheless, this review focuses

primarily on the social, economic, managerial, and organizational

aspects of blockchain technology in the banking sector, rather than

on the development of engineering or cryptographic systems, which

are typically covered in technical databases.

Furthermore, the study examined 389 peer-reviewed articles from

2015 to May 2025. Due to Scopus’s dynamic nature, the database

used for the study might not include the newest publications at

the cuto time of the nal submission, which could slightly aect

the bibliometric results. The study only used VOSviewer to map

and visualize bibliometric networks. Although VOSviewer is a pop-

ular tool, other tools, such as Gephi or CiteSpace, could have been

used to provide additional bibliometric measures, including network

centrality, modularity, and mediation scores.

Furthermore, this research did not propose a conceptual model

for how banks adopt blockchain technology. Therefore, subsequent

studies can build on this research to develop a more extensive model

that encapsulates the multidimensionality of blockchain applica-

tions. Despite its limitations, the research provides a preliminary

examination of the intellectual structure and thematic history of

blockchain research in the banking sector.

S. A. Aladeeb et al.

Ethical Statement

No ethical approval was required for this study, as it did not involve

human or animal subjects.

Funding

This research received no specic grant from any funding agency in

the public, commercial, or not-for-prot sectors.

Declaration of competing interests

The authors declare that they have no known competing nancial

interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to in-

uence the work reported in this article. Moreover, they assert that

no conicts of interest exist.

Declaration of generative AI and AI-assisted

technologies in the writing process

During the preparation of this manuscript, the author(s) used

language editing tools/services, including DeepL and Grammarly,

to improve grammatical accuracy and readability. The author(s)

subsequently reviewed and edited the contents thoroughly for accu-

racy and integrity after utilizing these tools/services and are fully

responsible for the nal version of the manuscript.

Data Availability Statement

The bibliometric dataset supporting the ndings of this study, in-

cluding the Scopus CSV le used for VOSviewer analyses, is publicly

available on Zenodo at:

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17992285

Credit authorship contribution statement

[Sadeq Abdullah Aladeeb]: Conceptualization, Software, Methodol-

ogy, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Visualization,

Writing – original draft & Editing. [Fatima Zohra Sossi Alaoui]:

Supervision, Validation, review & editing.

Table 10. Blo ckchain Themes and Future Research Directions in Banking.

No.Cluster Theme Future Research Directions References

1 Blockchain Applica-

tions for Transform-

ing Banking Op era-

tions and Financial

Intermediation

• Carry out comparative empirical research assessing the eects of smart contracts on transac-

tion settlement durations and operational costs in various banks.

• Create process-mapping models to quantify the reduction of reconciliation steps in interbank

clearing attributable to blockchain (utilizing Business Process Model and Notation “BPMN”

and time–motion analysis).

• Perform cross-country econometric evaluations to determine how blockchain-based remittance

solutions impact transfer expenses and delivery times in developing compared to developed

nations.

• Employ UTAUT2 or TOE frameworks to pinpoint the factors inuencing blockchain adoption

in retail versus corporate banking sectors.

• Employ UTAUT2 or TOE frameworks to pinpoint the factors inuencing blockchain adoption

in retail versus corporate banking sectors.

• Conduct case studies in low-income nations to uncover obstacles to scalability, interoperability,

and institutional integration.

[56],[61, 62], [77],[79],

[103],[105]

2 Decentralized Fi-

nance (DeFi) and

Cryptocurren-

cies Enabled by

Blockchain

• Model contagion and systemic risks within DeFi ecosystems through network analytics and

simulation methodologies (e.g., agent-based modeling).

• Conduct studies on regulatory impacts, comparing the eectiveness of various legal frameworks

in mitigating fraud and protecting consumers in DeFi lending platforms.

• Conduct studies on regulatory impacts, comparing the eectiveness of various legal frameworks

in mitigating fraud and protecting consumers in DeFi lending platforms

• Evaluate the inuence of DeFi credit markets on the liquidity, protability, and risk parameters

of commercial banks.

• Carry out b ehavioral studies to examine how cultural dierences shape motivations for adopt-

ing crypto currencies (speculation versus utility).

[81–83],[85–87]

3 Blockchain as an En-

abler of Digital and

Financial Technology

Convergence

• Design and evaluate blockchain–IoT prototypes for real-time Know Your Customer (KYC) /

Anti-Money Laundering (AML) monitoring within banking data streams.

• Assess the eectiveness of AI-enhanced smart contracts in dynamic access control through

penetration testing and cybersecurity evaluations.

• Create machine-learning models using blockchain transaction data to forecast credit risk or

fraud patterns, and validate using actual banking datasets.

• Develop and assess (Self-Sovereign Identity) SSI-based identity frameworks in partnership with

banks to gauge improvements in onboarding eciency and KYC compliance.

[58], [88],[90],[91]

4 Trust-Related

Dimensions in

Blockchain-Based

Banking

• mixed-methods surveys and interviews to evaluate the impact of human trust and organiza-

tional culture on blockchain adoption within banks.

• Establish a standardization readiness index to evaluate how system compatibility, legacy sys-

tems, and regulations impede blo ckchain integration.

• Design blockchain-based credit scoring prototypes and assess their eectiveness in diminishing

information asymmetry in SME lending.

• Implement longitudinal studies to track how increased transparency through blo ckchain inu-

ences customer trust over time.

[60],[93], [95],[96]

5 Regulatory, Legal,

and Institutional

Frameworks for

Blockchain Gover-

nance

• Propose and evaluate blockchain-enabled AML/CFT (Countering the Financing of Terrorism)

monitoring systems and measure their detection accuracy compared to traditional systems.

• Examine the ecacy of regulatory sandboxes by monitoring innovation outputs (patents,

pilots, startups) preceding and following sandbox involvement.

• Develop automated reporting and cryptographic proof systems for embedded supervision mo d-

els in DeFi.

• Analyze real-world CBDC pilot projects (e.g., e-CNY) to gauge privacy risks, transaction

speeds, and impacts on monetary policy using macro-nancial models.

[26],[59],[97],[98],[101]

6 Strategic Moderniza-

tion of Banking Busi-

ness Model Enabled

by Blockchain

• Employ scenario analysis to illustrate how blockchain inuences competition between neobanks

and traditional banks.

• Perform studies on the eects of nancial inclusion by evaluating blockchain-based micro-

nance initiatives in rural or underserved areas.

• Chart out policy, infrastructure, and institutional elements that contribute to successful

blockchain-driven transformation using the PESTEL (Political, Economic, Social, Techno-

logical, Environmental, and Legal) framework and multi-country case research.

[16],[37],[102]

S. A. Aladeeb et al.

References

1. A. Kumari and C. Devi, “The impact of ntech and blockchain

technologies on banking and nancial services,” Technology

Innovation Management Review, vol. 12, no. 1/2, p. 22010204,

2022, doi: https://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1481.

2. S. Nakamoto, “Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer electronic cash

system,” 2008, social Science Research Network, Rochester,

NY: 3440802. doi: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3440802.

3. T. Philip, R. G. Brown, and Y. Danny, “Blockchain technology

in nance,” Computer, vol. 50, no. 9, pp. 14–17, 2017, doi:

https://doi.org/10.1109/mc.2017.3571047.

4. S. Sarmah, “Understanding blockchain technology,” American

Journal of Computer Science and Technology, vol. 8, no. 2, pp.

23–29, Aug. 2018, doi:

https://doi.org/10.5923/j.computer.

20180802.02.

5. A. T. Sherman, F. Javani, H. Zhang, and E. Golaszewski, “On

the origins and variations of blockchain technologies,” IEEE

Security & Privacy, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 72–77, 2019, doi:

https://doi.org/10.1109/MSEC.2019.2893730.

6. A. A. Monrat, O. Schelén, and K. Andersson, “A survey of

blockchain from the perspectives of applications, challenges,

and opportunities,”

IEEE Access

, vol. 7, pp. 117134–117 151,

2019, doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2936094.

7. J. Li and M. Kassem, “Applications of distributed ledger

technology (dlt) and blockchain-enabled smart contracts in

construction,” Automation in Construction, vol. 132, p.

103955, 2021, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2021.

103955.

8. M. S. Ali, M. Vecchio, M. Pincheira, K. Dolui, F. Antonelli, and

M. H. Rehmani, “Applications of blockchains in the internet

of things: A comprehensive survey,” IEEE Communications

Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 1676–1717, 2019, doi:

https://doi.org/10.1109/COMST.2018.2886932.

9. M. H. Joo, Y. Nishikawa, and K. Dandapani, “Cryptocurrency,

a successful application of blockchain technology,” Managerial

Finance, vol. 46, no. 6, pp. 715–733, 2019, doi:

https://doi.org/10.1108/MF-09-2018-0451.

10. T. K. Mackey et al., “‘t-for-purpose?’ – challenges and

opportunities for applications of blockchain technology in the

future of healthcare,” BMC Medicine, vol. 17, no. 1, p. 68,

2019, doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-019- 1296-7.

11. C. Laroiya, D. Saxena, and C. Komalavalli, “Chapter 9

- applications of blockchain technology,” in Handbook of

Research on Blockchain Technology, S. Krishnan, V. E.

Balas, E. G. Julie, Y. H. Robinson, S. Balaji, and

R. Kumar, Eds. Academic Press, 2020, pp. 213–243, doi:

https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-819816- 2.00009-5.

12. A. Pal, C. K. Tiwari, and A. Behl, “Blockchain technology

in nancial services: a comprehensive review of the

literature,” Journal of Global Operations and Strategic

Sourcing, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 61–80, Mar. 2021, doi:

https://doi.org/10.1108/JGOSS-07-2020-0039.

13. N. Hackius and M. Petersen, “Blockchain in logistics

and supply chain: Trick or treat?” in Proceedings of

the Hamburg International Conference of Logistics (HICL),

Vol. 23, W. Kersten, T. Blecker, and C. M. Ringle,

Eds. Berlin: epubli GmbH, 2017, pp. 3–18, doi: https:

//doi.org/10.15480/882.1444.

14. M. Hernes, A. Rot, and D. Jelonek, Eds., Towards Industry 4.0

— Current Challenges in Information Systems, 1st ed., ser.

Studies in Computational Intelligence. Cham, Switzerland:

Springer International Publishing, 2020, vol. 887, doi:

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-40417- 8.

15. L. Cocco, A. Pinna, and M. Marchesi, “Banking on

blockchain: Costs savings thanks to the blockchain technology,”

Future Internet, vol. 9, no. 3, p. 25, Sep. 2017, doi:

https://doi.org/10.3390/fi9030025.

16. W. L. Harris and J. Wonglimpiyarat, “Blockchain platform

and future bank competition,” Foresight, vol. 21, no. 6,

pp. 625–639, Jul. 2019, doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/

FS-12-2018-0113.

17. H. S. Ali, F. Jia, Z. Lou, and J. Xie, “Eect of

blockchain technology initiatives on rms’ market value,”

Financial Innovation, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 1–35, 2023, doi:

https://doi.org/10.1186/s40854-023-00456-8.

18. S. M. M. Rahman et al., “Blockchain in the banking industry:

Unravelling thematic drivers and proposing a technological

framework through systematic review with bibliographic

network mapping,” IET Blockchain, vol. 5, no. 1, p. e12093,

2025, doi:

https://doi.org/10.1049/blc2.12093.

19. A. Ali, “Decentralized nance (de) and its impact on

traditional banking systems: Opportunities, challenges,

and future directions,” Social Science Research Network,

Rochester, NY, Aug. 2024, sSRN ID: 4942313. doi:

https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4942313.

20. A. Alamsyah, G. N. W. Kusuma, and D. P. Ramadhani,

“A review on decentralized nance ecosystems,” Future

Internet

, vol. 16, no. 3, p. 76, Mar. 2024, doi:

https://doi.org/10.3390/fi16030076.

21. D. Tapscott and A. Tapscott, Blockchain Revolution: How the

Technology Behind Bitcoin Is Changing Money, Business, and

the World. Penguin Publishing Group, 2016.

22. T. Ahram, A. Sargolzaei, S. Sargolzaei, J. Daniels, and

B. Amaba, “Blockchain technology innovations,” in 2017

IEEE Technology & Engineering Management Conference

(TEMSCON), Jun. 2017, pp. 137–141, doi: https:

//doi.org/10.1109/TEMSCON.2017.7998367.

23. V. K. Vemuri, “Blockchain: a practical guide to developing

business, law, and technology solutions,” Journal of

Information Technology Case and Application Research, 2018,

accessed: Jun. 18, 2025. doi:

https://doi.org/10.1080/

15228053.2019.1588546.

24. R. Zhang, R. Xue, and L. Liu, “Security and privacy on

blockchain,” ACM Computing Surveys, vol. 52, no. 3, pp.

1–34, May 2020, doi: https://doi.org/10.1145/3316481.

25. E. O. M. A. D. B. A. O. L. C. E. U. A. A. Bello, D. A. Oduro

and N. Okika., “Enhancing know your customer (kyc) and

anti-money laundering (aml) compliance using blockchain: A

business analysis approach,” Iconic Research And Engineering

Journals, 8(9):297–305, 2025, [Online]. [Online]. Available:

https://www.irejournals.com/paper-details/1707440

26. Y. Guo and C. Liang, “Blockchain application and outlook

in the banking industry,” Financial Innovation, vol. 2,

no. 1, p. 24, Dec. 2016, doi:

https://doi.org/10.1186/

s40854-016-0034-9.

27. T.-G. Budisteanu, “Blockchain and the banking sector:

Benets, challenges and perspectives,” Journal of Service

Science (JSS), vol. 13, no. 03, pp. 288–300, 2025, doi:

https://doi.org/10.4236/jss.2025.133019.

28. R. Mishra, R. K. Singh, S. Kumar, S. K. Mangla, and

V. Kumar, “Critical success factors of blockchain technology

adoption for sustainable and resilient operations in the

banking industry during an uncertain business environment,”

Electronic Commerce Research, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 595–629,

Feb. 2025, doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10660-023-09707-3.

29. H. Taherdoost, “A critical review of blockchain acceptance

models—blockchain technology adoption frameworks and

applications,” Computers, vol. 11, no. 2, p. 24, Feb. 2022, doi:

https://doi.org/10.3390/computers11020024.

30. J. Paul and A. R. Criado, “The art of writing literature

review: What do we know and what do we need to know?”

International Business Review, vol. 29, no. 4, p. 101717, Aug

2020, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2020.101717.

31. J. Pritchard, “Statistical-bibliography or bibliometrics?” Jour-

nal of Documentation, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 348–349, 1969.

32. L. Haggarty, “What is content analysis?” Medical Teacher,

vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 99–101, Jan 1996, doi: https:

//doi.org/10.3109/01421599609034141.

33. Y. Feng, Q. Zhu, and K.-H. Lai, “Corporate social

responsibility for supply chain management: A literature

review and bibliometric analysis,” Journal of Cleaner

Production, vol. 158, pp. 296–307, Aug 2017, doi:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.05.018.

34. T. Anushree, K. Puneet, M. Matti, and D. Amandeep,

“Blockchain applications in management: A bibliometric

analysis and literature review,” Technological Forecasting

and Social Change, vol. 166, p. 120649, May 2021, doi:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120649.

35. M. M. Alshater, M. Joshipura, R. E. Khoury, and N. Nasrallah,

“Initial coin oerings: a hybrid empirical review,” Small

Business Economics, vol. 61, no. 3, pp. 891–908, Oct 2023,

doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187- 022-00726-2.

36. S. M. M. Rahman, K. J. Yii, E. K. Masli, and M. L.

Voon, “The blockchain in the banking industry: a systematic

review and bibliometric analysis,” Cogent Business &

Management, vol. 11, no. 1, p. 2407681, Dec 2024, doi:

https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2024.2407681.

37. R. Patel, M. Migliavacca, and M. E. Oriani, “Blockchain

in banking and nance: A bibliometric review,” Research in

International Business and Finance, vol. 62, p. 101718, Dec

2022, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ribaf.2022.101718.

38. N. Donthu, S. Kumar, D. Mukherjee, N. Pandey, and W. M.

Lim, “How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview

and guidelines,” Journal of Business Research, vol. 133,

pp. 285–296, Sep 2021, doi:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.

2021.04.070.

39. M. J. Page and et al., “The prisma 2020 statement: an updated

guideline for reporting systematic reviews,” Revista Española

de Cardiología (English Edition), vol. 74, no. 9, pp. 790–799,

Sep 2021, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rec.2021.07.010.

40. N. J. van Eck and L. Waltman, “Software survey:

Vosviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping,”

Scientometrics, vol. 84, no. 2, pp. 523–538, Aug 2010, doi:

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3.

41. ——, “Citation-based clustering of publications us-

ing citnetexplorer and vosviewer,” Scientometrics, vol.

111, no. 2, pp. 1053–1070, May 2017, doi:

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2300-7.

42. A. M. Alawag, W. S. Alaloul, B. N. S. Al-dhawi, A. O.

Baarimah, M. A. Bazel, and A. W. Mushtaha, “A review and

bibliometric analysis of blockchain adoption within the context

of smart construction projects,” in 2024 ASU International

Conference in Emerging Technologies for Sustainability and

Intelligent Systems (ICETSIS), Jan 2024, pp. 805–811, doi:

https://doi.org/10.1109/ICETSIS61505.2024.10459703.

43. Ö. Öztürk, R. Kocaman, and D. K. Kanbach, “How

to design bibliometric research,” Review of Managerial

Science, vol. 18, pp. 3333–3361, 2024, doi: https:

//doi.org/10.1007/s11846-024-00738-0.

44. R. Kumar, “Bibliometric analysis: comprehensive insights into

tools, techniques, applications, and solutions for research

excellence,” Spectrum of Engineering and Management

Sciences, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 45–62, 2025, doi: https:

//doi.org/10.31181/sems31202535k.

45. C. M. J., L.-H. A. G., H.-V. E., and H. F., “Science mapping

software tools: Review, analysis, and cooperative study among

tools,” Journal of the American Society for Information

Science and Technology, vol. 62, no. 7, pp. 1382–1402, May

2011, doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21525.

46. C. Chen, “Science mapping: A systematic review of the

literature,” Journal of Data and Information Science, vol. 2,

no. 2, May 2017, doi: https://doi.org/10.1515/jdis- 2017-0006.

47. M. Callon, J.-P. Courtial, W. A. Turner, and S. Bauin,

“From translations to problematic networks: An introduction

to co-word analysis,” Social Science Information, vol. 22,

no. 2, pp. 191–235, Mar 1983, doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/

053901883022002003.

48. M. M. Kessler, “Bibliographic coupling between scientic

papers,” American Documentation, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 10–25,

1963, doi:

https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.5090140103.

49. V. Braun and V. Clarke, “Using thematic analysis in

psychology,” Qualitative Research in Psychology, vol. 3,

no. 2, pp. 77–101, Jan 2006, doi: https://doi.org/10.1191/

1478088706qp063oa.

50. M. Cheng, D. Edwards, S. Darcy, and K. Redfern, “A tri-

method approach to a review of adventure tourism literature:

Bibliometric analysis, content analysis, and a quantitative

systematic literature review,” Journal of Hospitality &

Tourism Research, vol. 42, no. 6, pp. 997–1020, Aug 2018, doi:

https://doi.org/10.1177/1096348016640588.

51. M. D. Moon, “Triangulation: A method to increase validity,

reliability, and legitimation in clinical research,” Journal of

Emergency Nursing, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 103–105, Jan 2019, doi:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jen.2018.11.004.

52. W. M. Lim, T. Rasul, S. Kumar, and M. Ala, “Past,

present, and future of customer engagement,” Journal of

Business Research, vol. 140, pp. 439–458, Feb 2022, doi:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.11.014.

53. D. W. Aksnes, L. Langfeldt, and P. Wouters, “Citations,

citation indicators, and research quality: An overview of basic

concepts and theories,” SAGE Open, vol. 9, no. 1, 2019, doi:

https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019829575.

54. A. V. Thakor, “Fintech and banking: What do we know?”

Journal of Financial Intermediation, vol. 41, p. 100833, Jan

2020, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfi.2019.100833.

55. J. Dai and M. A. Vasarhelyi, “Toward blockchain-based

accounting and assurance,” Journal of Information Systems,

vol. 31, no. 3, p. 5, 2017, doi:

https://doi.org/10.2308/

isys-51804.

56. G. Peters and E. Panayi, “Understanding modern banking

ledgers through blockchain technologies: Future of transaction

processing and smart contracts on the internet of money,”

Social Science Research Network, Nov 2015, sSRN ID:

2692487. doi:

https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2692487.

57. S. Schuetz and V. Venkatesh, “Blockchain, adoption,

and nancial inclusion in india: Research opportunities,”

International Journal of Information Management, vol. 52,

p. 101936, Jun 2020, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.

2019.04.009.

58. D. Minoli and B. Occhiogrosso, “Blockchain mechanisms for

iot security,” Internet of Things, vol. 1–2, pp. 1–13, Sep 2018,

doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iot.2018.05.002.

59. D. A. Zetzsche, D. W. Arner, and R. P. Buckley,

“Decentralized nance (de),” 2020, doi: https://doi.org/10.

2139/ssrn.3539194.

S. A. Aladeeb et al.

60. P. Garg, B. Gupta, A. K. Chauhan, U. Sivarajah, S. Gupta, and

S. Modgil, “Measuring the perceived benets of implementing

blockchain technology in the banking sector,” Technological

Forecasting and Social Change, vol. 163, p. 120407, Feb 2021,

doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120407.

61. S. Ahluwalia, R. V. Mahto, and M. Guerrero, “Blockchain

technology and startup nancing: A transaction cost

economics perspective,” Technological Forecasting and Social

Change, vol. 151, p. 119854, Feb 2020, doi: https:

//doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119854.

62. M. Javaid, A. Haleem, R. P. Singh, R. Suman, and S. Khan,

“A review of blockchain technology applications for nancial

services,” BenchCouncil Transactions on Benchmarks, Stan-

dards and Evaluations, vol. 2, no. 3, p. 100073, Jul 2022, doi:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tbench.2022.100073.

63. K. Börner, C. Chen, and K. W. Boyack, “Visualizing

knowledge domains,” Annual Review of Information Science

and Technology, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 179–255, 2003, doi:

https://doi.org/10.1002/aris.1440370106.

64. K. Börner, T. N. Theriault, and K. W. Boyack, “Mapping

science introduction: Past, present and future,” Bulletin of the

Association for Information Science and Technology, vol. 41,

no. 2, pp. 12–16, 2015, doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/bult.2015.

1720410205.

65. G. Wolfgang and S. András, “Analysing scientic networks

through co-authorship,” in Handbook of Quantitative Science

and Technology Research. Springer, 2005, pp. 257–276, doi:

https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-2755-9_12.

66. A. Isfandyari-Moghaddam, M. K. Saberi, S. Tahmasebi-

Limoni, S. Mohammadian, and F. Naderbeigi, “Global

scientic collaboration: A social network analysis and data

mining of the co-authorship networks,” Journal of Information

Science, vol. 49, no. 4, pp. 1126–1141, Aug. 2023, doi:

https://doi.org/10.1177/01655515211040655.

67. T. Luukkonen, O. Persson, and G. Sivertsen, “Understanding

patterns of international scientic collaboration,” Science,

Technology, & Human Values, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 101–126,

1992, doi:

https://doi.org/10.1177/016224399201700106.

68. Q. Gui, C. Liu, and D. Du, “Globalization of science and

international scientic collaboration: A network perspective,”

Geoforum, vol. 105, pp. 1–12, Oct. 2019, doi: https:

//doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2019.06.017.

69. J. S. Katz and B. R. Martin, “What is research collaboration?”

Research Policy, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 1–18, Mar. 1997, doi:

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(96)00917-1.

70. C. Wagner and L. Leydesdor, “Mapping the network of

global science: comparing international co-authorships from

1990 to 2000,” International Journal of Technology and

Globalisation, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 185–208, 2005, doi:

https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTG.2005.007050.

71. H. Small, “Co-citation in the scientic literature: A new

measure of the relationship between two documents,” Journal

of the American Society for Information Science, vol. 24,

no. 4, pp. 265–269, 1973, doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.

4630240406.

72. H. D. White and B. C. Grith, “Author cocitation: A

literature measure of intellectual structure,” Journal of the

American Society for Information Science, vol. 32, no. 3, pp.

163–171, 1981, doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.4630320302.

73. D. Zhao and A. Strotmann, “Intellectual structure of

information science 2011–2020: an author co-citation analysis,”

Journal of Documentation, vol. 78, no. 3, pp. 728–744, 2021,

doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/JD- 06-2021-0119.

74. K. W. McCain, “Mapping authors in intellectual space:

A technical overview,” Journal of the American Society

for Information Science, vol. 41, no. 6, pp. 433–443,

1990, doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199009)

41:6<433::AID-ASI11>3.0.CO;2- Q.

75. M. Sedighi, “Application of word co-occurrence analysis

method in mapping of the scientic elds (case study: the eld

of informetrics),” Library Review, vol. 65, no. 1/2, pp. 52–64,

2016, doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/LR-07- 2015-0075.

76. L. Leydesdor and A. Nerghes, “Co-word maps and topic

modeling: A comparison using small and medium-sized corpora

(n < 1,000),” Journal of the Association for Information

Science and Technology, vol. 68, no. 4, pp. 1024–1035, 2017,

doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23740.

77. N. Cucari, V. Lagasio, G. Lia, and C. Torriero, “The impact

of blockchain in banking processes: the interbank spunta

case study,” Technology Analysis Strategic Management,

2022, accessed: Jun. 25, 2025. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/

09537325.2021.1891217.

78. M. Shoaib, M. K. Lim, and C. Wang, “An integrated

framework to prioritize blockchain-based supply chain success

factors,” Industrial Management Data Systems, vol. 120,

no. 11, pp. 2103–2131, 2020, doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/

IMDS-04-2020-0194.

79. R. K. Jena, “Examining the factors aecting the adoption of

blockchain technology in the banking sector: An extended utaut

model,” International Journal of Financial Studies, vol. 10,

no. 4, p. 90, 2022, doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijfs10040090.

80. L. Mishra and V. Kaushik, “Application of blockchain

in dealing with sustainability issues and challenges of

nancial sector,” Journal of Sustainable Finance Investment,

vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 1318–1333, 2023, doi: https:

//doi.org/10.1080/20430795.2021.1940805.

81. P. Schueel, “De: Decentralized nance - an introduction and

overview,” Journal of Innovation Management, vol. 9, p. i, Dec

2021, doi:

https://doi.org/10.24840/2183-0606_009.003_0001.

82. C. Dierksmeier and P. Seele, “Cryptocurrencies and business

ethics,” Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 152, no. 1, pp. 1–14,

Sep 2018, doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551- 016-3298-0.

83. M. Fauzi and N. Paiman, “Bitcoin and cryptocurrency:

Challenges, opportunities and future works,” Journal of Asian

Finance Economics and Business, vol. 7, pp. 695–704, Aug

2020, doi: https://doi.org/10.13106/jafeb.2020.vol7.no8.695.

84. J. Campino, A. Brochado, and �. Rosa, “Initial coin

oerings (icos): Why do they succeed?” Financial Innovation,

vol. 8, no. 1, p. 17, Jan 2022, doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/

s40854-021-00317-2

85. T. MacDonald, D. W. E. Allen, and J. Potts, “Blockchains

and the boundaries of self-organized economies: Predictions

for the future of banking,” Social Science Research Network,

Mar 2016, sSRN working paper No. 2749514. doi:

https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2749514.

86. A. Tapscott and D. Tapscott, “How blockchain is chang-

ing nance,” Harvard Business Review, Mar. 1 2017,

[Online]. [Online]. Available: https://hbr.org/2017/03/

how-blockchain-is-changing- finance

87. R. Auer and D. Tercero-Lucas, “Distrust or speculation? the

socioeconomic drivers of u.s. cryptocurrency investments,”

Journal of Financial Stability, vol. 62, p. 101066, 2022, doi:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfs.2022.101066.

88. R. Gupta, V. K. Shukla, S. S. Rao, S. Anwar, P. Sharma,

and R. Bathla, “Enhancing privacy through ‘smart contract’

using blockchain-based dynamic access control,” in 2020

International Conference on Computation, Automation and

Knowledge Management (ICCAKM), 2020, pp. 338–343, doi:

https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCAKM46823.2020.9051521.

89. A. Naimi-Sadigh, T. Asgari, and M. Rabiei, “Digital

transformation in the value chain disruption of banking

services,” Journal of the Knowledge Economy, vol. 13,

no. 2, pp. 1212–1242, 2022, doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/

s13132-021-00759-0.

90. H. Rjoub, T. S. Adebayo, and D. Kirikkaleli, “Blockchain

technology-based ntech banking sector involvement using

adaptive neuro-fuzzy-based k-nearest neighbors algorithm,”

Financial Innovation, vol. 9, no. 1, p. 65, 2023, doi:

https://doi.org/10.1186/s40854-023-00469-3.

91. V. Schlatt, J. Sedlmeir, S. Feulner, and N. Urbach,

“Designing a framework for digital kyc processes built

on blockchain-based self-sovereign identity,” Information &

Management, vol. 59, no. 7, p. 103553, 2022, doi:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2021.103553.

92. S. U. Rehman et al., “Fintech adoption in smes and

bank credit supplies: A study on manufacturing smes,”

Economies, vol. 11, no. 8, p. 213, 2023, doi: https:

//doi.org/10.3390/economies11080213.

93. Q. Gan and R. Y. K. Lau, “Trust in a ‘trust-free’ system:

Blockchain acceptance in the banking and nance sector,”

Technological Forecasting and Social Change, vol. 199, p.

123050, 2024, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2023.

123050.

94. T. Saheb and F. H. Mamaghani, “Exploring the barriers and

organizational values of blockchain adoption in the banking

industry,” The Journal of High Technology Management

Research, vol. 32, no. 2, p. 100417, Nov. 2021, doi:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hitech.2021.100417.

95. J. G. Umarovich and R. K. Bakhtiyorovich, “Modeling

the decision-making process of lenders based on blockchain

technology,” in 2021 International Conference on Information

Science and Communications Technologies (ICISCT), Nov.

2021, pp. 1–5, doi:

https://doi.org/10.1109/ICISCT52966.

2021.9670211.

96. D. Kimani, K. Adams, R. Attah-Boakye, S. Ullah,

J. Frecknall-Hughes, and J. Kim, “Blockchain, business

and the fourth industrial revolution: Whence, whither,

wherefore and how?” Technological Forecasting and Social

Change, vol. 161, p. 120254, Dec. 2020, doi: https:

//doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120254.

97. P. Cuccuru, “Beyond bitcoin: an early overview on smart

contracts,” International Journal of Law and Information

Technology, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 179–195, Sep. 2017, doi:

https://doi.org/10.1093/ijlit/eax003.

98. C. Albrecht, K. M. Dun, S. Hawkins, and V. M. M.

Rocha, “The use of cryptocurrencies in the money laundering

process,” Journal of Money Laundering Control, vol. 22,

no. 2, pp. 210–216, May 2019, doi:

https://doi.org/10.1108/

JMLC-12-2017-0074.

99. K.-K. R. Choo, S. Ozcan, A. Dehghantanha, and R. M.

Parizi, “Editorial: Blockchain ecosystem—technological and

management opportunities and challenges: Part ii,” IEEE

Transactions on Engineering Management, vol. 69, no. 3, pp.

773–775, Jun. 2022, doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2022.

3147274.

100. S. Dashottar and V. Srivastava, “Corporate banking—risk

management, regulatory and reporting framework in india: a

blockchain application-based approach,” Journal of Banking

Regulation, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 39–51, Mar. 2021, doi:

https://doi.org/10.1057/s41261-020-00127-z.

101. J. Xu, “Developments and implications of central bank

digital currency: The case of china e-cny,” Asian Economic

Policy Review, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 235–250, 2022, doi:

https://doi.org/10.1111/aepr.12396.

102. D. Mhlanga, “Block chain technology for digital nancial

inclusion in the industry 4.0, towards sustainable develop-

ment?” Frontiers in Blockchain, vol. 6, Feb. 2023, doi:

https://doi.org/10.3389/fbloc.2023.1035405.

103. M. Osmani, R. El-Haddadeh, N. Hindi, M. Janssen,

and V. Weerakkody, “Blockchain for next generation

services in banking and nance: cost, benet, risk and

opportunity analysis,” Journal of Enterprise Information

Management, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 884–899, Jun 2020, doi:

https://doi.org/10.1108/JEIM-02-2020-0044.

104. R. Weerawarna, S. Miah, and X. Shao, “Emerging advances of

blockchain technology in nance: a content analysis,” Personal

and Ubiquitous Computing, vol. 27, pp. 1–14, Feb 2023, doi:

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-023-01712-5.

105. M. Khalil, K. F. Khawaja, and M. Sarfraz, “The adoption of

blockchain technology in the nancial sector during the era of

fourth industrial revolution: a moderated mediated model,”

Qualitative and Quantitative, vol. 56, no. 4, pp. 2435–2452,

Aug 2022, doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-021- 01229-0.

106. H. O. Mbaidin, M. A. K. Alsmairat, and R. Al-

Adaileh, “Blockchain adoption for sustainable development

in developing countries: Challenges and opportunities in

the banking sector,” International Journal of Information

Management Data Insights, vol. 3, no. 2, p. 100199, Nov 2023,

doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jjimei.2023.100199.

107. L. Rella, “Blockchain technologies and remittances: From

nancial inclusion to correspondent banking,” Frontiers in

Blockchain, vol. 2, 2019, doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fbloc.

2019.00014.

108. Z. Chen, Y. Li, Y. Wu, and J. Luo, “The transition

from traditional banking to mobile internet nance: an

organizational innovation perspective - a comparative study of

citibank and icbc,” Financial Innovation, vol. 3, no. 1, p. 12,

2017, doi:

https://doi.org/10.1186/s40854-017-0062-0.