Correct Code, Vulnerable Dependencies: A Large Scale Measurement Study of LLM-Specified Library Versions

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.06279v1
• Date: Thu, 07 May 2026 13:52:59 GMT
• Title: Correct Code, Vulnerable Dependencies: A Large Scale Measurement Study of LLM-Specified Library Versions
• Abstract summary: We present the first large-scale measurement study of version-level risk in large language models (LLMs)<n>We evaluate 10 LLMs on PinTrace, a curated benchmark of 1,000 Stack Overflow programming tasks.<n>Our findings reveal LLM version selection as a first-class, previously overlooked risk surface in LLM-based development.
• Score: 52.50730821321986
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are now largely involved in software development workflows, and the code they generate routinely includes third-party library (TPL) imports annotated with specific version identifiers. These version choices can carry security and compatibility risks, yet they have not been systematically studied. We present the first large-scale measurement study of version-level risk in LLM-generated Python code, evaluating 10 LLMs on PinTrace, a curated benchmark of 1,000 Stack Overflow programming tasks. LLMs tend to specify version identifiers when directly prompted at 26.83%-95.18%, while down to 6.45%-59.19% in creating a manifest file directly. Among the specified versions, 36.70%-55.70% of tasks contain at least one known CVE, and 62.75%-74.51% of them carry Critical or High severity ratings. In 72.27%-91.37% of cases, the associated CVEs were publicly disclosed before the model's knowledge cutoff. The statistics show all models converge on the same small set of risky release versions, indicating a systemic bias rather than isolated model error. Static compatibility rates range from 19.70% to 63.20%, with installation failure as the dominant cause. The dynamic test cases confirm the pattern by 6.49%-48.62% pass rates. Further experiments confirm that these failures are attributable to version selection rather than code quality, and that externally anchored version constraints substantially reduce both vulnerability exposure and compatibility failures. Our findings reveal LLM version selection as a first-class, previously overlooked risk surface in LLM-based development. We disclosed these findings to the community of the evaluated models, and several confirmed the issue. All the code and dataset have been released for open science at https://github.com/dw763j/PinTrace.

Related papers

• SemVerBench: Benchmarking LLM Comprehension of Version-Constraint Resolution Semantics [15.233613140316791]
  SemVerBench is the first benchmark of version-constraint resolution semantics across three ecosystems.<n>We evaluate six frontier models and find no statistically significant self-favoritism.<n>Because the task is verifiable and a free, 100%-correct resolver exists, tool delegation reaches 100%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-10T07:34:44Z)
• When LLMs Lag Behind: Knowledge Conflicts from Evolving APIs in Code Generation [12.67668690329239]
  "context-memory conflict" arises when external instructions contradict a model's internal parametric knowledge.<n>This paper presents a benchmark of 270 real-world updates from eight Python libraries.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-10T17:37:26Z)
• Diverse LLMs vs. Vulnerabilities: Who Detects and Fixes Them Better? [1.0026496861838445]
  DVDR-LLM is an ensemble framework that combines outputs from diverse large language models.<n>Our evaluation reveals that DVDR-LLM 10-12% higher detection accuracy compared to the average performance of individual models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-14T03:47:39Z)
• Hey, That's My Data! Label-Only Dataset Inference in Large Language Models [63.35066172530291]
  CatShift is a label-only dataset-inference framework.<n>It capitalizes on catastrophic forgetting: the tendency of an LLM to overwrite previously learned knowledge when exposed to new data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-06T13:02:59Z)
• Preference Leakage: A Contamination Problem in LLM-as-a-judge [69.96778498636071]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) as judges and LLM-based data synthesis have emerged as two fundamental LLM-driven data annotation methods.<n>In this work, we expose preference leakage, a contamination problem in LLM-as-a-judge caused by the relatedness between the synthetic data generators and LLM-based evaluators.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-03T17:13:03Z)
• Cracks in The Stack: Hidden Vulnerabilities and Licensing Risks in LLM Pre-Training Datasets [5.0091559832205155]
  We propose an automated source code autocuration technique to improve the quality of training data.<n>We evaluate this method using The Stack v2 dataset, and find that 17% of the code versions in the dataset have newer versions.<n>We expect our results to inspire process improvements for automated data curation, with the potential to enhance the reliability of outputs generated by AI tools.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-05T18:54:25Z)
• Exploring Response Uncertainty in MLLMs: An Empirical Evaluation under Misleading Scenarios [49.53589774730807]
  Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) have recently achieved state-of-the-art performance on tasks ranging from visual question answering to video understanding.<n>We reveal a response uncertainty phenomenon: twelve state-of-the-art open-source MLLMs overturn a previously correct answer in 65% of cases after receiving a single deceptive cue.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-05T01:11:28Z)
• TESTEVAL: Benchmarking Large Language Models for Test Case Generation [15.343859279282848]
  We propose TESTEVAL, a novel benchmark for test case generation with large language models (LLMs)<n>We collect 210 Python programs from an online programming platform, LeetCode, and design three different tasks: overall coverage, targeted line/branch coverage, and targeted path coverage.<n>We find that generating test cases to cover specific program lines/branches/paths is still challenging for current LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-06T22:07:50Z)
• OR-Bench: An Over-Refusal Benchmark for Large Language Models [65.34666117785179]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) require careful safety alignment to prevent malicious outputs.<n>This study proposes a novel method for automatically generating large-scale over-refusal datasets.<n>We introduce OR-Bench, the first large-scale over-refusal benchmark.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-31T15:44:33Z)
• LLMs Cannot Reliably Identify and Reason About Security Vulnerabilities (Yet?): A Comprehensive Evaluation, Framework, and Benchmarks [17.522223535347905]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have been suggested for use in automated vulnerability repair, but benchmarks showing they can consistently identify security-related bugs are lacking. We develop SecLLMHolmes, a fully automated evaluation framework that performs the most detailed investigation to date on whether LLMs can reliably identify and reason about security-related bugs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-19T20:19:43Z)
• Do-Not-Answer: A Dataset for Evaluating Safeguards in LLMs [59.596335292426105]
  This paper collects the first open-source dataset to evaluate safeguards in large language models. We train several BERT-like classifiers to achieve results comparable with GPT-4 on automatic safety evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-25T14:02:12Z)

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.