Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Can You Really Trust Code Copilots? Evaluating Large Language Models from a Code Security Perspective

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 2505.10494 v1 pith:SWUEFP6F submitted 2025-05-15 cs.CL

Can You Really Trust Code Copilots? Evaluating Large Language Models from a Code Security Perspective

classification cs.CL
keywords codesecurityvulnerabilitycomprehensiveevaluationllmscodescompletion
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
Share X LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Code security and usability are both essential for various coding assistant applications driven by large language models (LLMs). Current code security benchmarks focus solely on single evaluation task and paradigm, such as code completion and generation, lacking comprehensive assessment across dimensions like secure code generation, vulnerability repair and discrimination. In this paper, we first propose CoV-Eval, a multi-task benchmark covering various tasks such as code completion, vulnerability repair, vulnerability detection and classification, for comprehensive evaluation of LLM code security. Besides, we developed VC-Judge, an improved judgment model that aligns closely with human experts and can review LLM-generated programs for vulnerabilities in a more efficient and reliable way. We conduct a comprehensive evaluation of 20 proprietary and open-source LLMs. Overall, while most LLMs identify vulnerable codes well, they still tend to generate insecure codes and struggle with recognizing specific vulnerability types and performing repairs. Extensive experiments and qualitative analyses reveal key challenges and optimization directions, offering insights for future research in LLM code security.

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. A Quasi-Experimental Developer Study of Security Training in LLM-Assisted Web Application Development

    cs.CR 2026-04 conditional novelty 6.0

    A within-subject study of 12 developers found that security training reduced validated weaknesses by 31.5% and critical issues by 79.2% in LLM-assisted backend coding.

  2. The Illusion of Secure LLM Code: Closing the Security Gap via Iterative Reprompting

    cs.CR 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.5

    Across five coding assistants, authentication code is insecure under basic or generic-secure prompts; single-shot NIST help improves it, but only iterative reprompting approaches defense-in-depth.