MOS: Towards Effective Smart Contract Vulnerability Detection through Mixture-of-Experts Tuning of Large Language Models

April 16, 2025 Β· Declared Dead Β· πŸ› arXiv.org

πŸ‘» CAUSE OF DEATH: Ghosted
No code link whatsoever

"No code URL or promise found in abstract"

Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner

Authors Hang Yuan, Lei Yu, Zhirong Huang, Jingyuan Zhang, Junyi Lu, Shiqi Cheng, Li Yang, Fengjun Zhang, Jiajia Ma, Chun Zuo arXiv ID 2504.12234 Category cs.SE: Software Engineering Citations 3 Venue arXiv.org Last Checked 4 months ago
Abstract
Smart contract vulnerabilities pose significant security risks to blockchain systems, potentially leading to severe financial losses. Existing methods face several limitations: (1) Program analysis-based approaches rely on predefined patterns, lacking flexibility for new vulnerability types; (2) Deep learning-based methods lack explanations; (3) Large language model-based approaches suffer from high false positives. We propose MOS, a smart contract vulnerability detection framework based on mixture-of-experts tuning (MOE-Tuning) of large language models. First, we conduct continual pre-training on a large-scale smart contract dataset to provide domain-enhanced initialization. Second, we construct a high-quality MOE-Tuning dataset through a multi-stage pipeline combining LLM generation and expert verification for reliable explanations. Third, we design a vulnerability-aware routing mechanism that activates the most relevant expert networks by analyzing code features and their matching degree with experts. Finally, we extend the feed-forward layers into multiple parallel expert networks, each specializing in specific vulnerability patterns. We employ a dual-objective loss function: one for optimizing detection and explanation performance, and another for ensuring reasonable distribution of vulnerability types to experts through entropy calculation. Experiments show that MOS significantly outperforms existing methods with average improvements of 6.32% in F1 score and 4.80% in accuracy. The vulnerability explanations achieve positive ratings (scores of 3-4 on a 4-point scale) of 82.96%, 85.21% and 94.58% for correctness, completeness, and conciseness through human and LLM evaluation.
Community shame:
Not yet rated
Community Contributions

Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!

πŸ“œ Similar Papers

In the same crypt β€” Software Engineering

Died the same way β€” πŸ‘» Ghosted