Mitigating False Positives in Static Memory Safety Analysis of Rust Programs via Reinforcement Learning
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.04000v2
- Date: Wed, 06 May 2026 04:54:08 GMT
- Title: Mitigating False Positives in Static Memory Safety Analysis of Rust Programs via Reinforcement Learning
- Abstract summary: Static analysis tools are essential for ensuring memory safety in Rust programs.<n>Existing tools such as Rudra and MirChecker suffer from high false positive rates.<n>This paper presents a novel reinforcement learning (RL)-based approach for automatically classifying and suppressing spurious warnings.
- Score: 9.7161418437872
- License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
- Abstract: Static analysis tools are essential for ensuring memory safety in Rust programs, particularly as Rust gains adoption in safety-critical domains. However, existing tools such as Rudra and MirChecker suffer from high false positive rates, which diminish developer trust, increase manual review effort, and may obscure genuine vulnerabilities. This paper presents a novel reinforcement learning (RL)-based approach for automatically classifying and suppressing spurious warnings in static memory safety analysis for Rust. To achieve this, we design an RL agent that learns a warning suppression policy by extracting contextual features from Rust's Mid-level Intermediate Representation (MIR) and optimizing its decisions through interaction with static analysis outputs. To improve decision quality, we integrate dynamic validation via cargo-fuzz as an auxiliary feedback mechanism, allowing the agent to selectively validate suspicious warnings through targeted fuzz testing. Our evaluation shows that the proposed approach significantly outperforms state-of-the-art LLM-based baselines, achieving 65.2% accuracy and an F1 score of 0.659, an improvement of 17.1% over the best LLM baseline. With a recall of 74.6%, our method successfully identifies nearly three-quarters of true bugs while substantially reducing false positives, improving precision from 25.6% in raw Rudra output to 59.0%. Incorporating dynamic fuzzing further boosts performance, yielding additional improvements of 10.7 percentage points in accuracy and 8.6 percentage points in F1 score over the RL-only variant. Overall, our work demonstrates that combining reinforcement learning with hybrid static-dynamic analysis can substantially reduce false positives and improve the practical usability of memory safety verification tools for Rust.
Related papers
- Metis: Learning to Jailbreak LLMs via Self-Evolving Metacognitive Policy Optimization [51.11398557420066]
We introduce Metis, a framework that reformulates jailbreaking as inference-time policy optimization.<n>Metis achieves the strongest average Attack Success Rate (ASR) among compared methods at 89.2%.<n>By replacing redundant exploration with directed optimization, Metis reduces token costs by an average of 8.2x and up to 11.4x.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2026-05-11T06:45:00Z) - SecPI: Secure Code Generation with Reasoning Models via Security Reasoning Internalization [50.71047638695205]
Reasoning language models (RLMs) are increasingly used in programming.<n>Yet, even state-of-the-art RLMs frequently introduce critical security vulnerabilities in generated code.<n>We present SecPI, a fine-tuning pipeline that teaches RLMs to internalize structured security reasoning.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2026-04-04T04:29:11Z) - REAL: Regression-Aware Reinforcement Learning for LLM-as-a-Judge [83.2858110368572]
We propose textbfREAL (underlineREgression-underlineAware Reinforcement underlineLThought), a principled RL framework designed to optimize regression rewards.<n>We show that REAL consistently outperforms both regression-aware SFT baselines and standard RL methods.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2026-03-17T21:19:08Z) - IR$^3$: Contrastive Inverse Reinforcement Learning for Interpretable Detection and Mitigation of Reward Hacking [67.20568716300272]
Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) enables powerful LLM alignment but can introduce reward hacking.<n>We introduce IR3 (Interpretable Reward Reconstruction and Rectification), a framework that reverse-engineers, interprets, and surgically repairs the implicit objectives driving RLHF-tuned models.<n>We show that IR3 achieves 0.89 correlation with ground-truth rewards, identifies hacking features with over 90% precision, and significantly reduces hacking behaviors while maintaining capabilities within 3% of the original model.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2026-02-23T01:14:53Z) - CVeDRL: An Efficient Code Verifier via Difficulty-aware Reinforcement Learning [57.24524263804788]
Code verifiers play a critical role in post-verification for LLM-based code generation.<n>Existing supervised fine-tuning methods suffer from data scarcity, high failure rates, and poor inference efficiency.<n>We show that naive RL with only functionality rewards fails to generate effective unit tests for difficult branches and samples.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2026-01-30T10:33:29Z) - SafeR-CLIP: Mitigating NSFW Content in Vision-Language Models While Preserving Pre-Trained Knowledge [51.634837361795434]
SaFeR-CLIP reconciles safety and performance, recovering up to 8.0% in zero-shot accuracy over prior methods.<n>We also contribute NSFW-Caps, a new benchmark of 1,000 highly-aligned pairs for testing safety under distributional shift.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-11-20T19:00:15Z) - Think Twice, Generate Once: Safeguarding by Progressive Self-Reflection [18.467741067831877]
We introduce Progressive Self-Reflection, a novel inference-time technique that empowers large language models to self-monitor and correct their outputs dynamically.<n> Experimental results demonstrate that applying our proposed method to Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct reduces the attack success rate from 77.5% to 5.9%.<n>Our approach acts as a test-time scaling method, where additional self-reflection rounds enhance safety at the cost of inference overhead.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-09-29T12:54:28Z) - Explainable Vulnerability Detection in C/C++ Using Edge-Aware Graph Attention Networks [0.2499907423888049]
This paper presents ExplainVulD, a graph-based framework for vulnerability detection in C/C++ code.<n>It achieves a mean accuracy of 88.25 percent and an F1 score of 48.23 percent across 30 independent runs on the ReVeal dataset.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-07-22T12:49:14Z) - 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) - Can LLM Prompting Serve as a Proxy for Static Analysis in Vulnerability Detection [9.269926508651091]
Large language models (LLMs) have shown limited ability on safety-critical code tasks such as vulnerability detection.<n>We propose prompting strategies that integrate natural language instructions of vulnerabilities with contrastive chain-of-thought reasoning.<n>Our findings demonstrate that security-aware prompting techniques can be effective alternatives to the laborious, hand-crafted rules of static analyzers.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-12-16T18:08:14Z) - Augmenting Unsupervised Reinforcement Learning with Self-Reference [63.68018737038331]
Humans possess the ability to draw on past experiences explicitly when learning new tasks.
We propose the Self-Reference (SR) approach, an add-on module explicitly designed to leverage historical information.
Our approach achieves state-of-the-art results in terms of Interquartile Mean (IQM) performance and Optimality Gap reduction on the Unsupervised Reinforcement Learning Benchmark.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-11-16T09:07:34Z)
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.