Examining Zero-Shot Vulnerability Repair with Large Language Models
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Human developers can produce code with cybersecurity bugs. Can emerging ‘smart’ code completion tools help repair those bugs? In this work, we examine the use of large language models (LLMs) for code (such as OpenAI’s Codex and AI21’s Jurassic J-1) for zero-shot vulnerability repair. We investigate challenges in the design of prompts that coax LLMs into generating repaired versions of insecure code. This is difficult due to the numerous ways to phrase key information— both semantically and syntactically—with natural languages. We perform a large scale study of five commercially available, black-box, "off-the-shelf" LLMs, as well as an open-source model and our own locally-trained model, on a mix of synthetic, hand-crafted, and real-world security bug scenarios. Our experiments demonstrate that while the approach has promise (the LLMs could collectively repair 100% of our synthetically generated and hand-crafted scenarios), a qualitative evaluation of the model’s performance over a corpus of historical real-world examples highlights challenges in generating functionally correct code.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it