Is Vibe Coding the Future? An Empirical Assessment of LLM Generated Codes for Construction Safety

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.12311v1
• Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2026 05:42:29 GMT
• Title: Is Vibe Coding the Future? An Empirical Assessment of LLM Generated Codes for Construction Safety
• Abstract summary: This study empirically evaluates the reliability, software architecture, and domain-specific safety fidelity of 450 vibe-coded Python scripts.<n>Results reveal a highly significant relationship between user persona and data hallucination, demonstrating that less formal prompts drastically increase the AI's propensity to invent missing safety variables.
• Score: 0.14504054468850666
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: The emergence of vibe coding, a paradigm where non-technical users instruct Large Language Models (LLMs) to generate executable codes via natural language, presents both significant opportunities and severe risks for the construction industry. While empowering construction personnel such as the safety managers, foremen, and workers to develop tools and software, the probabilistic nature of LLMs introduces the threat of silent failures, wherein generated code compiles perfectly but executes flawed mathematical safety logic. This study empirically evaluates the reliability, software architecture, and domain-specific safety fidelity of 450 vibe-coded Python scripts generated by three frontier models, Claude 3.5 Haiku, GPT-4o-Mini, and Gemini 2.5 Flash. Utilizing a persona-driven prompt dataset (n=150) and a bifurcated evaluation pipeline comprising isolated dynamic sandboxing and an LLM-as-a-Judge, the research quantifies the severe limits of zero-shot vibe codes for construction safety. The findings reveal a highly significant relationship between user persona and data hallucination, demonstrating that less formal prompts drastically increase the AI's propensity to invent missing safety variables. Furthermore, while the models demonstrated high foundational execution viability (~85%), this syntactic reliability actively masked logic deficits and a severe lack of defensive programming. Among successfully executed scripts, the study identified an alarming ~45% overall Silent Failure Rate, with GPT-4o-Mini generating mathematically inaccurate outputs in ~56% of its functional code. The results demonstrate that current LLMs lack the deterministic rigor required for standalone safety engineering, necessitating the adoption of deterministic AI wrappers and strict governance for cyber-physical deployments.

Related papers

• An Empirical Evaluation of LLM-Generated Code Security Across Prompting Methods [11.454777386934632]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) for automated code generation has enhanced software development efficiency, but often at the cost of security.<n>We present a comprehensive empirical evaluation of the security quality of LLM-generated code across five LLMs and four programming languages.<n>We introduce a weaknesses-aware zero-shot chain-of-thought (WA-0CoT) prompting strategy that enriches prompts with security context using CWE mappings to guide model reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-22T23:52:33Z)
• SecureForge: Finding and Preventing Vulnerabilities in LLM-Generated Code via Prompt Optimization [61.91729298584227]
  We introduce SecureForge, an automated pipeline that audits security risks of frontier models and produces auditing-informed secure system prompts.<n>SecureForge first identifies benign prompts that produce statically detectable vulnerabilities, and then amplifies them into a large synthetic prompt corpus of diverse scenarios.<n>On frontier models, SecureForge yields a statistically significant improvement in both unit test success and output security, with output vulnerabilities reduced by up to 48%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-08T18:40:47Z)
• RealSec-bench: A Benchmark for Evaluating Secure Code Generation in Real-World Repositories [58.32028251925354]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in code generation, but their proficiency in producing secure code remains a critical, under-explored area.<n>We introduce RealSec-bench, a new benchmark for secure code generation meticulously constructed from real-world, high-risk Java repositories.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-30T08:29:01Z)
• Casting a SPELL: Sentence Pairing Exploration for LLM Limitation-breaking [23.54890959996959]
  Large language models (LLMs) have revolutionized software development through AI-assisted coding tools.<n>This accessibility extends to malicious actors who may exploit these powerful tools to generate harmful software.<n>We propose SPELL, a comprehensive testing framework specifically designed to evaluate the weakness of security alignment in malicious code generation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-24T15:25:31Z)
• A.S.E: A Repository-Level Benchmark for Evaluating Security in AI-Generated Code [49.009041488527544]
  A.S.E is a repository-level evaluation benchmark for assessing the security of AI-generated code.<n>Current large language models (LLMs) still struggle with secure coding.<n>A larger reasoning budget does not necessarily lead to better code generation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-25T15:11:11Z)
• LLM-GUARD: Large Language Model-Based Detection and Repair of Bugs and Security Vulnerabilities in C++ and Python [0.0]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT-4, Claude 3, and LLaMA 4 are increasingly embedded in software/application development.<n>This study presents a systematic, empirical evaluation of these three leading LLMs using a benchmark of programming errors, classic security flaws, and advanced, production-grade bugs in C++ and Python.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-22T14:30:24Z)
• Are AI-Generated Fixes Secure? Analyzing LLM and Agent Patches on SWE-bench [9.229310642804036]
  We present the first large-scale security analysis of LLM-generated patches using 20,000+ issues from the SWE-bench dataset.<n>We evaluate patches produced by a standalone LLM (Llama 3.3) and compare them to developer-written patches.<n>We also assess the security of patches generated by three top-performing agentic frameworks (OpenHands, AutoCodeRover, HoneyComb) on a subset of our data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-30T21:10:19Z)
• Training Language Models to Generate Quality Code with Program Analysis Feedback [66.0854002147103]
  Code generation with large language models (LLMs) is increasingly adopted in production but fails to ensure code quality.<n>We propose REAL, a reinforcement learning framework that incentivizes LLMs to generate production-quality code.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-28T17:57:47Z)
• The Hidden Risks of LLM-Generated Web Application Code: A Security-Centric Evaluation of Code Generation Capabilities in Large Language Models [0.769672852567215]
  This paper uses predefined security parameters to evaluate the security compliance of LLM-generated code across multiple models.<n>The analysis reveals critical vulnerabilities in authentication mechanisms, session management, input validation and HTTP security headers.<n>Our findings underscore that human expertise is crucial to ensure secure software deployment or review of LLM-generated code.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-29T10:23:11Z)
• 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)
• CodeAttack: Revealing Safety Generalization Challenges of Large Language Models via Code Completion [117.178835165855]
  This paper introduces CodeAttack, a framework that transforms natural language inputs into code inputs. Our studies reveal a new and universal safety vulnerability of these models against code input. We find that a larger distribution gap between CodeAttack and natural language leads to weaker safety generalization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-12T17:55:38Z)
• 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)

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.