ZeroFalse: Improving Precision in Static Analysis with LLMs
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
Static Application Security Testing (SAST) tools are integral to modern software development, yet their adoption is undermined by excessive false positives that weaken developer trust and demand costly manual triage. We present ZeroFalse, a framework that integrates static analysis with large language models (LLMs) to reduce false positives while preserving coverage. ZeroFalse treats static analyzer outputs as structured contracts, enriching them with flow-sensitive traces, contextual evidence, and CWE-specific knowledge before adjudication by an LLM. This design preserves the systematic reach of static analysis while leveraging the reasoning capabilities of LLMs. We evaluate ZeroFalse across both benchmarks and real-world projects using ten state-of-the-art LLMs. Our best-performing models achieve F1-scores of 0.912 on the OWASP Java Benchmark and 0.955 on the OpenVuln dataset, maintaining recall and precision above 90%. Results further show that CWE-specialized prompting consistently outperforms generic prompts, and reasoning-oriented LLMs provide the most reliable precision-recall balance. These findings position ZeroFalse as a practical and scalable approach for enhancing the reliability of SAST and supporting its integration into real-world CI/CD pipelines.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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