SV-TrustEval-C: Evaluating Structure and Semantic Reasoning in Large Language Models for Source Code Vulnerability Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As Large Language Models (LLMs) evolve in understanding and generating code, accurately evaluating their reliability in analyzing source code vulnerabilities becomes in-creasingly vital. While studies have examined LLM capabilities in tasks like vulnerability detection and repair, they often over-look the importance of both structure and semantic reasoning crucial for trustworthy vulnerability analysis. To address this gap, we introduce SV-TRUSTEVAL-C, a benchmark designed to evaluate LLMs' abilities for vulnerability analysis of code written in the C programming language through two key di-mensions: structure reasoning-assessing how models identify relationships between code elements under varying data and control flow complexities; and semantic reasoning-examining their logical consistency in scenarios where code is structurally and semantically perturbed. Our results show that current LLMs are far from satisfactory in understanding complex code relationships and that their vulnerability analyses rely more on pattern matching than on robust logical reasoning. These findings underscore the effectiveness of the SV-TRUSTEVAL-C benchmark and highlight critical areas for enhancing the reasoning capabilities and trustworthiness of LLMs in real-world vulnerability analysis tasks. Our ini-tial benchmark dataset is available at https://huggingface.co/datasets/LLMs4CodeSecurity/SV-TrustEval-C-1.0
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".