Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

SALLM: Security Assessment of Generated Code

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2311.00889 v3 pith:QLLWLLFV submitted 2023-11-01 cs.SE cs.AI

classification cs.SEcs.AI
keywords codellmsgeneratedsecurityevaluateassessmentexistingframework
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

With the growing popularity of Large Language Models (LLMs) in software engineers' daily practices, it is important to ensure that the code generated by these tools is not only functionally correct but also free of vulnerabilities. Although LLMs can help developers to be more productive, prior empirical studies have shown that LLMs can generate insecure code. There are two contributing factors to the insecure code generation. First, existing datasets used to evaluate LLMs do not adequately represent genuine software engineering tasks sensitive to security. Instead, they are often based on competitive programming challenges or classroom-type coding tasks. In real-world applications, the code produced is integrated into larger codebases, introducing potential security risks. Second, existing evaluation metrics primarily focus on the functional correctness of the generated code while ignoring security considerations. Therefore, in this paper, we described SALLM, a framework to benchmark LLMs' abilities to generate secure code systematically. This framework has three major components: a novel dataset of security-centric Python prompts, configurable assessment techniques to evaluate the generated code, and novel metrics to evaluate the models' performance from the perspective of secure code generation.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Large Language Models for Code Generation from Multilingual Prompts: A Curated Benchmark and a Study on Code Quality

    cs.SE 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Prompt language affects LLM code generation, but English is not consistently best: Chinese prompts improve Python correctness on CoderEval, while quality and lexicon effects vary by model and programming language.

  2. Is Quantization a Deal-breaker? Empirical Insights from Large Code Models

    cs.SE 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    4-bit AWQ quantization of CodeLlama and DeepSeek-Coder largely preserves static-analysis measures of code quality on Java and Python tasks, with small readability and maintainability shifts.

  3. Quantize with Confidence? An Empirical Study of Quantization for Code Generation

    cs.SE 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    4-bit quantization of code LLMs mostly preserves pass@1, but AQLM matches or beats full precision while QuIP# degrades most on complex prompts; sensitivity is model-dependent.

Pith tools