Pith. sign in

REVIEW 6 cited by

We Have a Package for You! A Comprehensive Analysis of Package Hallucinations by Code Generating LLMs

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 2406.10279 v3 pith:KE5LQ45R submitted 2024-06-12 cs.SE cs.AIcs.CRcs.LG

classification cs.SEcs.AIcs.CRcs.LG
keywords packagehallucinationscodellmsmodelsgeneratinglanguagesprogramming
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

The reliance of popular programming languages such as Python and JavaScript on centralized package repositories and open-source software, combined with the emergence of code-generating Large Language Models (LLMs), has created a new type of threat to the software supply chain: package hallucinations. These hallucinations, which arise from fact-conflicting errors when generating code using LLMs, represent a novel form of package confusion attack that poses a critical threat to the integrity of the software supply chain. This paper conducts a rigorous and comprehensive evaluation of package hallucinations across different programming languages, settings, and parameters, exploring how a diverse set of models and configurations affect the likelihood of generating erroneous package recommendations and identifying the root causes of this phenomenon. Using 16 popular LLMs for code generation and two unique prompt datasets, we generate 576,000 code samples in two programming languages that we analyze for package hallucinations. Our findings reveal that that the average percentage of hallucinated packages is at least 5.2% for commercial models and 21.7% for open-source models, including a staggering 205,474 unique examples of hallucinated package names, further underscoring the severity and pervasiveness of this threat. To overcome this problem, we implement several hallucination mitigation strategies and show that they are able to significantly reduce the number of package hallucinations while maintaining code quality. Our experiments and findings highlight package hallucinations as a persistent and systemic phenomenon while using state-of-the-art LLMs for code generation, and a significant challenge which deserves the research community's urgent attention.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 6 Pith papers

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

  1. SkillSieve: A Hierarchical Triage Framework for Detecting Malicious AI Agent Skills

    cs.CR 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    SkillSieve is a hierarchical triage framework combining regex/AST/XGBoost filtering, parallel LLM subtasks, and multi-LLM jury voting to detect malicious AI agent skills, reaching 0.800 F1 on a 400-skill benchmark at ...

  2. AgentSentinel: An End-to-End and Real-Time Security Defense Framework for Computer-Use Agents

    cs.CR 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    AgentSentinel combines system-level tracing with LLM-based auditing to block 79.6% of attacks in the authors' 60-scenario computer-use agent benchmark.

  3. Importing Phantoms: Measuring LLM Package Hallucination Vulnerabilities

    cs.LG 2025-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    LLMs hallucinate non-existent software packages at rates up to 46%, and larger models with higher HumanEval scores show lower hallucination rates.

  4. Towards an Agent Operating System - Lessons from Classical and Cloud OS

    cs.AI 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Agentic systems need an Agent-OS of thirteen OS/Cloud-OS-derived primitives with precise platform-enforceable semantics before portable production adoption is possible.

  5. Design Patterns for Securing LLM Agents against Prompt Injections

    cs.LG 2025-06 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Six composable design patterns (action-selector, plan-then-execute, map-reduce, dual LLM, code-then-execute, context-minimization) constrain LLM agents so prompt-injected text cannot reach consequential actions.

  6. Hallucination by Code Generation LLMs: Taxonomy, Benchmarks, Mitigation, and Challenges

    cs.SE 2025-04 conditional novelty 3.0 of 10

    This survey organizes code-LLM hallucinations into four types, reviews 52 related papers, and identifies open challenges in detection and mitigation.

Pith tools