REVIEW 2 cited by
Benchmarking LLMs and LLM-based Agents in Practical Vulnerability Detection for Code Repositories
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
Signed reviews
read the original abstract
Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown promise in software vulnerability detection, particularly on function-level benchmarks like Devign and BigVul. However, real-world detection requires interprocedural analysis, as vulnerabilities often emerge through multi-hop function calls rather than isolated functions. While repository-level benchmarks like ReposVul and VulEval introduce interprocedural context, they remain computationally expensive, lack pairwise evaluation of vulnerability fixes, and explore limited context retrieval, limiting their practicality. We introduce JitVul, a JIT vulnerability detection benchmark linking each function to its vulnerability-introducing and fixing commits. Built from 879 CVEs spanning 91 vulnerability types, JitVul enables comprehensive evaluation of detection capabilities. Our results show that ReAct Agents, leveraging thought-action-observation and interprocedural context, perform better than LLMs in distinguishing vulnerable from benign code. While prompting strategies like Chain-of-Thought help LLMs, ReAct Agents require further refinement. Both methods show inconsistencies, either misidentifying vulnerabilities or over-analyzing security guards, indicating significant room for improvement.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Mono: Is Your "Clean" Vulnerability Dataset Really Solvable? Exposing and Trapping Undecidable Patches and Beyond
Mono reports that 31% of MegaVul patches are non-security and about 16.7% of CVEs are 'undecidable', while its added context raises LLM vulnerability detection F1 by up to 15%.
-
Everything You Wanted to Know About LLM-based Vulnerability Detection But Were Afraid to Ask
With context-rich prompts that include CWE hints and marked potential vulnerability sites, LLM detectors beat random baselines, but the evaluation may leak the answer.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.