Benchmarking LLM-Based Static Analysis for Secure Smart Contract Development: Reliability, Limitations, and Potential Hybrid Solutions

Stefan-Claudiu Susan, Andrei Arusoaie, Dorel Lucanu
5/11/2026
cs.CRcs.AI

No confident code implementation found for this paper.

Abstract

The irreversible nature of blockchain transactions makes the identification of smart contract vulnerabilities an essential requirement for secure system development. While Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly integrated into developer workflows, their reliability as autonomous security auditors remains unproven. We assess whether current generative models are a viable replacement for, or only a complement to, traditional static-analysis tools. Our findings indicate that LLM efficacy is undermined by both inherent lexical bias and a lack of rigorous validation of external data inputs. This reliance on non-semantic heuristics, such as identifier naming, leads to a high frequency of false positives. Furthermore, prompting techniques reveal a trade-off between precision and recall. These results were derived using our custom automated framework, which achieves 92% accuracy in classifying model outputs.

View on arXivView PDF

Code Implementations

No confident code match yet

We couldn't find an author-owned or strongly-evidenced community implementation for this paper. Any repos shown below are weak matches — verify before relying on them.

No code implementations found yet.

Know of an implementation? Let us know in the comments below!

Similar Papers

Cite this paper

@article{susan2026benchmarking,
  title  = {Benchmarking LLM-Based Static Analysis for Secure Smart Contract Development: Reliability, Limitations, and Potential Hybrid Solutions},
  author = {Stefan-Claudiu Susan and Andrei Arusoaie and Dorel Lucanu},
  year   = {2026},
  eprint = {2605.11163},
  archivePrefix = {arXiv},
  url    = {http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.11163v1}
}

Add a badge to your README

Shows whether official code is linked for this paper.

Code of Paper badge
[![Code of Paper](https://codeofpaper.com/badge/2605.11163.svg)](https://codeofpaper.com/paper/2605.11163)

Discussion