Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

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 2506.10322 v1 pith:V3ORUWOB submitted 2025-06-12 cs.SE

Minimizing False Positives in Static Bug Detection via LLM-Enhanced Path Feasibility Analysis

classification cs.SE
keywords analysisdetectionfalsefeasibilityllm4pfapathpositivesstatic
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

Static bug analyzers play a crucial role in ensuring software quality. However, existing analyzers for bug detection in large codebases often suffer from high false positive rates. This is primarily due to the limited capabilities of analyzers in path feasibility validation with multiple conditional branches and complex data dependencies. While current LLM-based approaches attempt to address this issue, their effectiveness remains limited due to insufficient constraint cascade analysis and scalability challenges in large projects. To address this challenge, we propose an iterative path feasibility analysis framework LLM4PFA. By leveraging LLM agent based targeted constraint reasoning, and key context-aware analysis driven by agent planning, LLM4PFA effectively enhances complex inter-procedural path feasibility analysis for minimizing false positives in static bug detection. Evaluation results show that LLM4PFA precisely filters out 72% to 96% false positives reported during static bug detection, significantly outperforming all the baselines by 41.1% - 105.7% improvements; meanwhile LLM4PFA only misses 3 real bugs of 45 true positives.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Do Skill Descriptions Tell the Truth? Detecting Undisclosed Security Behaviors in Code-Backed LLM Skills

    cs.CR 2026-05 conditional novelty 7.0

    SKILLSCOPE detects undisclosed security behaviors in LLM skill implementations via security property graphs and taxonomy-based consistency checking, identifying confirmed inconsistencies in 9.4% of 4,556 evaluated ski...