Cited by 31Blockchain Technology Applications and SecuritySoftware Testing and Debugging TechniquesSoftware Engineering Research

Advanced Smart Contract Vulnerability Detection via LLM-Powered Multi-Agent Systems

Open access
Wei, Zhiyuan, Sun, Jing, Sun, Yuqiang, Liu, Ye, Wu, Daoyuan, Zhang, Zijian, Zhang, Xianhao, Li, Meng +5 more·2025·IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering

Abstract

Blockchain’s inherent immutability, while transformative, creates critical security risks in smart contracts, where undetected vulnerabilities can result in irreversible financial losses. Current auditing tools and approaches often address specific vulnerability types, yet there is a need for a comprehensive solution that can detect a wide range of vulnerabilities with high accuracy. We propose LLM-SmartAudit, a novel framework that leverages Large Language Models (LLMs) to automate smart contract vulnerability detection and analysis. Using a multi-agent conversational architecture with a buffer-of-thought mechanism, LLM-SmartAudit maintains a dynamic record of insights generated throughout the audit process. This enables a collaborative system of specialized agents to iteratively refine their assessments, enhancing the accuracy and depth of vulnerability detection. To evaluate its effectiveness, LLM-SmartAudit was tested on three datasets: a benchmark for common vulnerabilities, a real-world project corpus, and a CVE dataset. It outperformed existing tools with 98% accuracy on common vulnerabilities and demonstrates higher accuracy in real-world scenarios. Additionally, it successfully identifies 12 out of 13 CVEs, surpassing other LLM-based methods. These results demonstrate the effectiveness of multi-agent collaboration in automated smart contract auditing, offering a scalable, adaptive, and highly efficient solution for blockchain security analysis.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/tse.2025.3597319

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 29 · Cited by 31

Authors
Wei, Z., Sun, J., Sun, Y., Liu, Y., Wu, D., Zhang, Z., Zhang, X., Li, M., Liu, Y., Li, C., Wan, M., Dong, J., & Zhu, L.
Affiliations
  • Beijing Institute of Technology (CN)
  • Nanyang Technological University (SG)
  • Lingnan University (HK)
  • Hefei University of Technology (CN)
  • Beijing Academy of Blockchain and Edge Computing, Beijing, China
  • University of Auckland (NZ)
Venue
IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering
Published
2025-10
Volume
51
Issue
10
Pages
2830-2846
ISSN
  • 0098-5589 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-3520
  • 2326-3881
OpenAlex
W4413188105
Cited by
31
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 28 · 2025: 3
FWCI
32.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DR-NTU (Nanyang Technological University) (submittedVersion)
  • Rare & Special e-Zone (The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Key R&D Program of China (2023YFB2703700)
  • Beijing Advanced Innovation Center for Future Blockchain and Privacy Computing (GJJ-25-002)
  • National Natural Science Foundation of China (62372149, U23A20303, 62372173)
  • China Scholarship Council
  • Key Laboratory of Knowledge Engineering with Big Data (BigKEOpen2025-04)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Blockchain Technology Applications and Security
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Software › Software Testing and Debugging Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Research
Keywords
smart contract vulnerability detection, blockchain security, large language models, multi-agent systems, chatbots

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review