Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

Reasoning with LLMs for Zero-Shot 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 2503.17885 v1 pith:72IMA6TN submitted 2025-03-22 cs.SE cs.AI

classification cs.SEcs.AI
keywords acrossevaluationreasoningsoftwarethinkvulnerabilityanalysisapproach
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

Automating software vulnerability detection (SVD) remains a critical challenge in an era of increasingly complex and interdependent software systems. Despite significant advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) for code analysis, prevailing evaluation methodologies often lack the \textbf{context-aware robustness} necessary to capture real-world intricacies and cross-component interactions. To address these limitations, we present \textbf{VulnSage}, a comprehensive evaluation framework and a dataset curated from diverse, large-scale open-source system software projects developed in C/C++. Unlike prior datasets, it leverages a heuristic noise pre-filtering approach combined with LLM-based reasoning to ensure a representative and minimally noisy spectrum of vulnerabilities. The framework supports multi-granular analysis across function, file, and inter-function levels and employs four diverse zero-shot prompt strategies: Baseline, Chain-of-Thought, Think, and Think & Verify. Through this evaluation, we uncover that structured reasoning prompts substantially improve LLM performance, with Think & Verify reducing ambiguous responses from 20.3% to 9.1% while increasing accuracy. We further demonstrate that code-specialized models consistently outperform general-purpose alternatives, with performance varying significantly across vulnerability types, revealing that no single approach universally excels across all security contexts. Link to dataset and codes: https://github.com/Erroristotle/VulnSage.git

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. How Reasoning Shapes Social Bias in LLM-Generated Code?

    cs.SE 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Reasoning before code generation lowers the average bias rate in LLM-generated code from 0.64 to 0.40, and a new probe-based method (ProbeDebias) cuts bias by about 84% while keeping quality nearly unchanged.

  2. Everything You Wanted to Know About LLM-based Vulnerability Detection But Were Afraid to Ask

    cs.CR 2025-04 reject novelty 6.0 of 10

    With context-rich prompts that include CWE hints and marked potential vulnerability sites, LLM detectors beat random baselines, but the evaluation may leak the answer.

  3. Detecting Zero-Day Web Attacks with an Ensemble of LSTM, GRU, and Stacked Autoencoders

    cs.CR 2025-04 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    An ensemble of LSTM, GRU, and stacked autoencoders trained only on normal web requests is reported to detect zero-day web attacks with 97.58 percent accuracy and a 0.2 percent false-positive rate on CSIC2012.

Pith tools