Thought Is All You Need: Smart Contract Vulnerability Detection with Thought-Augmented Large Language Model
Open accessAbstract
Smart contracts are self-executing agreements with code-defined terms enabling trustless blockchain transactions. Their immutability and control over significant financial assets make them attractive attack targets, with vulnerabilities potentially causing catastrophic financial losses. Large Language Models (LLMs) have revolutionized numerous domains with remarkable capabilities in code understanding and problem-solving. Despite these advancements, recent research reveals that LLMs still face significant limitations in accurately detecting complex vulnerabilities in smart contracts. This disparity between the capabilities of LLMs and the stringent requirements of security analysis underscores the necessity for tailored methodologies to enhance LLM-based vulnerability detection strategies. In this paper, we propose Synapse, the first smart contract vulnerability detection framework leveraging thought-augmented LLM and fine-grained analysis under focal context. Specifically, Synapse emulates security researchers' vulnerability discovery workflow, including vulnerability pattern learning, thought instantiation, reasoning, and verification. We employ a Buffer of Vulnerability Reasoning Thoughts (BoVRT) approach for LLMs to learn and apply vulnerability-specific reasoning to concrete contracts, improving detection accuracy. We also leverage specialized reasoning and code models to optimize different stages of the vulnerability detection process. To evaluate Synapse, we collected…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Fine-grained links allow the LLM to focus on a specific bug type and a small snippet in each detection step.
“First, they allow the LLM to focus on a specific bug type and a small snippet in each detection step, following the general principle of decomposing complex tasks into focused subproblems [47], [48].”
From Guiding Human Validation of LLM-Generated Code via Verifiable Literate Programming (2026) · cites this paper as [47]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 62
- Authors
- Peng, C., Jiang, M., Zhou, Y., & Wu, L.
- Affiliations
- Zhejiang University (CN)
- BlockSec, Hangzhou, China
- Venue
- Proceedings of the ACM on Software Engineering
- Published
- 2026-06-30
- Volume
- 3
- Issue
- FSE
- Pages
- 3023-3046
- ISSN
- 2994-970X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W7166741064
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 62
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Locations
- Proceedings of the ACM on software engineering. (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Blockchain Technology Applications and Security
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Research
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Software › Software Testing and Debugging Techniques
- Keywords
- smart contract vulnerability detection, large language models, blockchain security
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