Minimizing False Positives in Static Bug Detection via LLM-Enhanced Path Feasibility Analysis

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2506.10322v1
• Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2025 03:11:38 GMT
• Title: Minimizing False Positives in Static Bug Detection via LLM-Enhanced Path Feasibility Analysis
• Authors: Xueying Du, Kai Yu, Chong Wang, Yi Zou, Wentai Deng, Zuoyu Ou, Xin Peng, Lingming Zhang, Yiling Lou,
• Abstract summary: Existing analyzers for bug detection in larges often suffer from high false positive rates.<n>This is primarily due to the limited capabilities of analyzers in path feasibility validation.<n>We propose an iterative path feasibility analysis framework LLM4PFA.
• Score: 19.798348922632314
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Static bug analyzers play a crucial role in ensuring software quality. However, existing analyzers for bug detection in large codebases often suffer from high false positive rates. This is primarily due to the limited capabilities of analyzers in path feasibility validation with multiple conditional branches and complex data dependencies. While current LLM-based approaches attempt to address this issue, their effectiveness remains limited due to insufficient constraint cascade analysis and scalability challenges in large projects. To address this challenge, we propose an iterative path feasibility analysis framework LLM4PFA. By leveraging LLM agent based targeted constraint reasoning, and key context-aware analysis driven by agent planning, LLM4PFA effectively enhances complex inter-procedural path feasibility analysis for minimizing false positives in static bug detection. Evaluation results show that LLM4PFA precisely filters out 72% to 96% false positives reported during static bug detection, significantly outperforming all the baselines by 41.1% - 105.7% improvements; meanwhile LLM4PFA only misses 3 real bugs of 45 true positives.

Related papers

• Towards Effective Complementary Security Analysis using Large Language Models [3.203446435054805]
  A key challenge in security analysis is the manual evaluation of potential security weaknesses generated by static application security testing (SAST) tools.<n>We propose using Large Language Models (LLMs) to improve the assessment of SAST findings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-20T10:46:35Z)
• The Hitchhiker's Guide to Program Analysis, Part II: Deep Thoughts by LLMs [17.497629884237647]
  BugLens is a post-refinement framework that significantly enhances static analysis precision for bug detection.<n>LLMs demonstrate promising code understanding capabilities, but their direct application to program analysis remains unreliable.<n>LLMs guide LLMs through structured reasoning steps to assess security impact and validate constraints from the source code.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-16T02:17:06Z)
• LLM-Safety Evaluations Lack Robustness [58.334290876531036]
  We argue that current safety alignment research efforts for large language models are hindered by many intertwined sources of noise.<n>We propose a set of guidelines for reducing noise and bias in evaluations of future attack and defense papers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-04T12:55:07Z)
• Automated Refactoring of Non-Idiomatic Python Code: A Differentiated Replication with LLMs [54.309127753635366]
  We present the results of a replication study in which we investigate GPT-4 effectiveness in recommending and suggesting idiomatic actions.<n>Our findings underscore the potential of LLMs to achieve tasks where, in the past, implementing recommenders based on complex code analyses was required.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-28T15:41:54Z)
• Mitigating Forgetting in LLM Fine-Tuning via Low-Perplexity Token Learning [61.99353167168545]
  We show that fine-tuning with LLM-generated data improves target task performance and reduces non-target task degradation.<n>This is the first work to provide an empirical explanation based on token perplexity reduction to mitigate catastrophic forgetting in LLMs after fine-tuning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-24T08:18:56Z)
• Exploring Automatic Cryptographic API Misuse Detection in the Era of LLMs [60.32717556756674]
  This paper introduces a systematic evaluation framework to assess Large Language Models in detecting cryptographic misuses. Our in-depth analysis of 11,940 LLM-generated reports highlights that the inherent instabilities in LLMs can lead to over half of the reports being false positives. The optimized approach achieves a remarkable detection rate of nearly 90%, surpassing traditional methods and uncovering previously unknown misuses in established benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-23T15:31:26Z)
• SORRY-Bench: Systematically Evaluating Large Language Model Safety Refusal [64.9938658716425]
  SORRY-Bench is a proposed benchmark for evaluating large language models' (LLMs) ability to recognize and reject unsafe user requests.<n>First, existing methods often use coarse-grained taxonomy of unsafe topics, and are over-representing some fine-grained topics.<n>Second, linguistic characteristics and formatting of prompts are often overlooked, like different languages, dialects, and more -- which are only implicitly considered in many evaluations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-20T17:56:07Z)
• An Insight into Security Code Review with LLMs: Capabilities, Obstacles, and Influential Factors [9.309745288471374]
  Security code review is a time-consuming and labor-intensive process.<n>Existing security analysis tools struggle with poor generalization, high false positive rates, and coarse detection granularity.<n>Large Language Models (LLMs) have been considered promising candidates for addressing those challenges.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-29T17:13:44Z)
• Understanding the Effectiveness of Large Language Models in Detecting Security Vulnerabilities [12.82645410161464]
  We evaluate the effectiveness of 16 pre-trained Large Language Models on 5,000 code samples from five diverse security datasets. Overall, LLMs show modest effectiveness in detecting vulnerabilities, obtaining an average accuracy of 62.8% and F1 score of 0.71 across datasets. We find that advanced prompting strategies that involve step-by-step analysis significantly improve performance of LLMs on real-world datasets in terms of F1 score (by upto 0.18 on average)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-16T13:17:20Z)
• ReEval: Automatic Hallucination Evaluation for Retrieval-Augmented Large Language Models via Transferable Adversarial Attacks [91.55895047448249]
  This paper presents ReEval, an LLM-based framework using prompt chaining to perturb the original evidence for generating new test cases. We implement ReEval using ChatGPT and evaluate the resulting variants of two popular open-domain QA datasets. Our generated data is human-readable and useful to trigger hallucination in large language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-19T06:37:32Z)
• The Hitchhiker's Guide to Program Analysis: A Journey with Large Language Models [18.026567399243]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) offer a promising alternative to static analysis. In this paper, we take a deep dive into the open space of LLM-assisted static analysis. We develop LLift, a fully automated framework that interfaces with both a static analysis tool and an LLM.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-01T02:57:43Z)
• LLMs as Factual Reasoners: Insights from Existing Benchmarks and Beyond [135.8013388183257]
  We propose a new protocol for inconsistency detection benchmark creation and implement it in a 10-domain benchmark called SummEdits. Most LLMs struggle on SummEdits, with performance close to random chance. The best-performing model, GPT-4, is still 8% below estimated human performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-23T21:50:06Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.