Metrics Failure in LLM-Based Code Vulnerability Repair: An Empirical Study and a Change-Aware Screen

Practical Tips

Practical tips and how-to guidance will be added by our editorial team.

中文解读

中文解读待补充：本站将优先为睡眠改善、失眠治疗、助眠方法等高价值文章补充中文说明。

Article Summary

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly applied to the automated repair of C/C++ security vulnerabilities, and compile rate is a commonly reported proxy for progress: whether the generated patch compiles. We argue that compile rate is a scientifically unreliable metric for single-function vulnerability repair, and we support this with five controlled experiments over 203 vulnerable functions from Big-Vul, three open-source code LLMs (350M to 6.7B parameters), and three prompting strategies. Compile rate (i) barely responds to an intervention that substantially improves the generated code; (ii) is dominated by evaluation-harness and dataset artifacts rather than model quality, with about 64% of compile failures not attributable to the model, a share that is nearly invariant across models; (iii) shifts by 1.8 to 2.7 times on identical patches under a single compiler-standard flag, with zero regressions; (iv) ranks the three models in the opposite order to reference-similarity metrics; and (v) rewards non-repairs when used as an optimization target, since a compiler-feedback loop raises compile rate while similarity to the human fix falls, with manual inspection finding deletion- and placeholder-style non-repairs among the newly compiling outputs. The natural fallback, whole-function CodeBLEU, also fails: an unchanged copy of the vulnerable input outscores every model. We also examine diff_F1, a change-aware screen that scores only the edited region. It gives exactly zero credit to a no-op and near-zero credit to some, though not all, of the deletion-based gaming patches we observed, while still crediting genuine partial edits, so it may serve as a cheap screen before deeper, execution-based analysis. It is not a repair-quality metric, and we report where it falls short. Our findings argue for change-aware, execution-grounded evaluation of LLM-based vulnerability repair.

Sources & References

• Original source
• Full article (PDF)

Comments