Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

Comparison of Static Application Security Testing Tools and Large Language Models for Repo-level Vulnerability Detection

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

arxiv 2407.16235 v1 pith:PJU67DCR submitted 2024-07-23 cs.SE cs.AI

classification cs.SEcs.AI
keywords detectionllmssastvulnerabilitytoolssecuritysoftwarevulnerabilities
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Software vulnerabilities pose significant security challenges and potential risks to society, necessitating extensive efforts in automated vulnerability detection. There are two popular lines of work to address automated vulnerability detection. On one hand, Static Application Security Testing (SAST) is usually utilized to scan source code for security vulnerabilities, especially in industries. On the other hand, deep learning (DL)-based methods, especially since the introduction of large language models (LLMs), have demonstrated their potential in software vulnerability detection. However, there is no comparative study between SAST tools and LLMs, aiming to determine their effectiveness in vulnerability detection, understand the pros and cons of both SAST and LLMs, and explore the potential combination of these two families of approaches. In this paper, we compared 15 diverse SAST tools with 12 popular or state-of-the-art open-source LLMs in detecting software vulnerabilities from repositories of three popular programming languages: Java, C, and Python. The experimental results showed that SAST tools obtain low vulnerability detection rates with relatively low false positives, while LLMs can detect up 90\% to 100\% of vulnerabilities but suffer from high false positives. By further ensembling the SAST tools and LLMs, the drawbacks of both SAST tools and LLMs can be mitigated to some extent. Our analysis sheds light on both the current progress and future directions for software vulnerability detection.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. OpenAlex reports about 4 citations worldwide. Full citation record

  1. From Evaluation to Optimisation: Hierarchy-Aware Training Signals for CWE Prediction in Python

    cs.LG 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Using the ALPHA hierarchy penalty as a direct GRPO reward improves CWE prediction under distribution shift, while supervised delivery of the same penalty regresses below zero-shot.

  2. Toward Realistic Evaluations of Just-In-Time Vulnerability Prediction

    cs.SE 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Just-in-time vulnerability prediction models that look strong on balanced datasets perform near-randomly on realistic, imbalanced commit streams.

  3. Towards Effective Complementary Security Analysis using Large Language Models

    cs.CR 2025-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Using Chain-of-Thought and Self-Consistency prompts, some LLMs removed over half of SAST false positives on a benchmark while missing no genuine weaknesses, and ensembling three models removed about 79%.

Pith tools