跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail
← 研踪 PaperTrail

arXiv:2610.38621 · v1

When LLM Architectures Meet Smart Contract Vulnerability Detection: a Replication Study

首次提交 2026-10-28 18:42
版本更新 2026-10-28 18:42
雷达观测 2026-10-30 10:22
arXiv ↗PDF ↗

摘要

Smart contracts are immutable programs deployed on blockchain platforms, where vulnerabilities can translate directly into financial loss. Among the techniques proposed for their detection, recent work has relied increasingly on Large Language Models (LLMs) guided by carefully crafted prompts. However, the evidence accumulated so far rests almost entirely on the dense Transformer architecture behind the GPT line and on model snapshots already scheduled for deprecation, leaving open the question of whether the reported behaviors reflect a general property of LLMs or an artifact of that specific design. This paper presents an extended replication of the empirical study by Chen et al. on LLM-based smart contract vulnerability detection. We replicate the original protocol on GPT-4 as a baseline, followed by a differentiated replication, executing the protocol on representative models based on Mixture-of-Experts and RNN-like designs, together with an attempted preliminary evaluation of State Space Models. The exact replication confirms the findings of Chen et al., including the high-recall, low-precision detection pattern they report on GPT-4. Nevertheless, the differentiated replication shows that this pattern does not transfer uniformly across the evaluated models. Those from the same architectural family may also exhibit different behaviors, indicating that architectural family alone is insufficient to predict the resulting detection profile. We observe the same qualitative dense-Transformer profile in both GPT-4 and Gemma-3, despite a gap of roughly two orders of magnitude in parameter counts, whereas two Mixture-of-Experts models from different lineages exhibit qualitatively divergent behaviors, indicating that architectural family alone is insufficient to predict the detection profile.

AI 论文解读

基于摘要 · 非全文审阅

此版本尚未生成 AI 解读。解读由后台任务生成并按论文版本保存,登录后共享已有结果。

版本差异

目前只观测到一个版本,无法比较变化。之后收录新版本时,会在这里对照标题、作者、分类和摘要。

观测到的版本

相邻记录可能跳过中间版本;首次发现 v2 及以上也会标为版本更新。

v1 · 2026-10-28 18:42 · 最新观测版本

When LLM Architectures Meet Smart Contract Vulnerability Detection: a Replication Study

Smart contracts are immutable programs deployed on blockchain platforms, where vulnerabilities can translate directly into financial loss. Among the techniques proposed for their detection, recent work has relied increasingly on Large Language Models (LLMs) guided by carefully crafted prompts. However, the evidence accumulated so far rests almost entirely on the dense Transformer architecture behind the GPT line and on model snapshots already scheduled for deprecation, leaving open the question of whether the reported behaviors reflect a general property of LLMs or an artifact of that specific design. This paper presents an extended replication of the empirical study by Chen et al. on LLM-based smart contract vulnerability detection. We replicate the original protocol on GPT-4 as a baseline, followed by a differentiated replication, executing the protocol on representative models based on Mixture-of-Experts and RNN-like designs, together with an attempted preliminary evaluation of State Space Models. The exact replication confirms the findings of Chen et al., including the high-recall, low-precision detection pattern they report on GPT-4. Nevertheless, the differentiated replication shows that this pattern does not transfer uniformly across the evaluated models. Those from the same architectural family may also exhibit different behaviors, indicating that architectural family alone is insufficient to predict the resulting detection profile. We observe the same qualitative dense-Transformer profile in both GPT-4 and Gemma-3, despite a gap of roughly two orders of magnitude in parameter counts, whereas two Mixture-of-Experts models from different lineages exhibit qualitatively divergent behaviors, indicating that architectural family alone is insufficient to predict the detection profile.

查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗