Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

The Hitchhiker's Guide to Program Analysis, Part II: Deep Thoughts by 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 2504.11711 v3 pith:SF7MA7G2 submitted 2025-04-16 cs.SE cs.AI

The Hitchhiker's Guide to Program Analysis, Part II: Deep Thoughts by LLMs

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

Static analysis plays a crucial role in software vulnerability detection, yet faces a persistent precision-scalability tradeoff. In large codebases like the Linux kernel, traditional static analysis tools often generate excessive false positives due to simplified vulnerability modeling and overapproximation of path and data constraints. While large language models (LLMs) demonstrate promising code understanding capabilities, their direct application to program analysis remains unreliable due to inherent reasoning limitations. We introduce BugLens, a post-refinement framework that significantly enhances static analysis precision for bug detection. BugLens guides LLMs through structured reasoning steps to assess security impact and validate constraints from the source code. When evaluated on Linux kernel taint-style bugs detected by static analysis tools, BugLens improves precision approximately 7-fold (from 0.10 to 0.72), substantially reducing false positives while uncovering four previously unreported vulnerabilities. Our results demonstrate that a well-structured, fully automated LLM-based workflow can effectively complement and enhance traditional static analysis techniques.

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. Using LLMs to Adjudicate Static-Analysis Alerts with Error Reduction Techniques

    cs.SE 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.5

    Mid-tier reasoning LLMs with consistency checks and LLM reasoning evaluation adjudicate static-analysis alerts at ≥98% recall and ≥94.8% specificity across Juliet, FormAI, and SV-COMP.