Cited by 0Blockchain Technology Applications and SecuritySoftware Engineering ResearchSoftware Testing and Debugging Techniques

Thought Is All You Need: Smart Contract Vulnerability Detection with Thought-Augmented Large Language Model

Open access
Peng, Chaoyuan, Jiang, Muhui, Zhou, Yajin, Wu, Lei·2026·Proceedings of the ACM on Software Engineering

Abstract

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

Crossref · 10.1145/3808141

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?

  • 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].”

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
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