Search: “code-quality”

An Empirical Analysis of CodeQL False Positives and Query Refinements for Java Vulnerabilities

Study of 167 Java CVE instances finds CodeQL false positives follow recurring patterns; query refinements remove 81.8% of reviewed ones.

Researchers ran CodeQL's Java security query suite on 167 CVE instances from 110 projects, manually reviewing 500 sampled false-positive paths and building a five-category taxonomy led by Missed Path Constraint or Sanitization (36.6%), Benign Execution Context (29.4%), and Missing Trust Boundary Modeling (27.6%). Guided by the taxonomy, query-level refinements removed 81.8% of reviewed false positives and 15.8% of reported paths across the selected queries while retaining 7 of 8 true positives. To address generalization, agentic coding tools given the refinement patterns as templates adapted them to new projects successfully in 56% and 62% of tasks, versus 28% without guidance.

arXiv cs.CR·Sep 3, 22:48 UTC · 12d agoResearch1

ExecCritic: Learn to Test, Test to Improve for Coding Agents

ExecCritic separates test generation from patching for coding agents, lifting SWE-bench Verified resolution to 72.6%.

ExecCritic pairs a test-verify-revise scaffold with role-specific reinforcement learning: a Test agent writes repository-native tests and a Repair agent fixes code from execution feedback, both using Qwen-3.5-35B-A3B backbones. Post-trained Qwen agents compose to 72.6% on SWE-bench Verified, an 11.4-point gain over the 61.2% no-test baseline, without stronger-model or oracle feedback at evaluation time. The work shows test quality is the key variable: base-agent tests lowered resolution to 57.3% while GPT-5.6-sol tests raised it to 65.3%.

arXiv cs.AI / cs.LG / cs.CL·Sep 8, 17:53 UTC · 7d agoAI research1

When Models Edit Too Much: On the Fidelity of Minimal Code Edits

A 400-task BigCodeBench evaluation shows frontier LLMs widely over-edit code; a preservation instruction cuts excess edits and raises Pass@1 by 2.3 points.

Researchers built an evaluation framework from 400 BigCodeBench problems with injected AST-level corruptions, each with a known minimal patch, to measure over-editing in LLM code repair. Even strong models like GPT-5.5 produce unnecessarily large edits despite high Pass@1. Adding a preservation instruction reduced average excess Levenshtein distance from 0.195 to 0.131, cut added cognitive complexity by 26.6%, and raised Pass@1 by 2.3 points. Reinforcement learning post-training gave the best out-of-domain edit-fidelity trade-off, while supervised fine-tuning overfit to seen corruption patterns.

Hugging Face daily papers·Sep 2, 20:00 UTC · 13d agoAI research1

Can your coding style predict whether your code is vulnerable?

University of Massachusetts Dartmouth researchers present VulStyle, a stylometry-based vulnerability detector that also exposes benchmark reliability problems.

VulStyle combines stylometric features with syntax-tree structure and source tokens, pre-trained on about 4.9 million functions across seven programming languages and fine-tuned on five vulnerability detection datasets. It beat token-only detectors on some benchmarks but its F1 drops sharply on DiverseVul, which the authors link to noisy labels inflating reported performance across popular datasets. The authors argue style-aware detection should be harder to evade but did not test this empirically, and they note that uniform LLM-generated code may strip away the individual developer style the model depends on.

Help Net Security·Aug 24, 04:21 UTC · 23d agoResearch1

Retrofitting Code Using LLMs to Support Exceptional Behavior

EXCODER combines static/dynamic analysis with LLMs to retrofit exception-handling code, achieving 85.92% pass@1 with Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B on Java benchmarks.

The paper introduces the task of retrofitting existing code with Exception Related Code (throw statements, guarding conditions, try/catch blocks) so that given Exceptional Behavior Tests pass. EXCODER performs context engineering by integrating static and dynamic program analysis output with LLMs; it was evaluated on a benchmark built from 304 methods across 75 GitHub Java projects. Combined with Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B, EXCODER achieves pass@1, 5, and 10 rates of 85.92%, 86.18%, and 86.51%, roughly 13 percentage points over baseline, and manual inspection reveals remaining limitations.

arXiv cs.AI / cs.LG / cs.CL·Sep 9, 16:18 UTC · 6d agoAI research1

How well do agents use test/verification techniques?

Dan Luu's eval finds coding-agent testing instructions (TDD, formal methods, PBT, skills) mostly fail to beat defaults on Zstd implementation correctness.

The author ran 26 prompt conditions plus 4 skills on a Zstd-in-Rust implementation eval using codex with GPT-5.6, testing TDD, fuzzing, property-based testing, formal methods (Lean 4, TLA+, Verus, Kani, SMT solvers) and community skills. Nothing dramatically outperformed the default no-instruction condition, which did above average; at xhigh effort, fuzzing and PBT conditions did slightly better than formal methods. Pre-registered predictions included TDD underperforming and popular test skills (ECC, Hegel, Trail of Bits) not outperforming. Results are averages of 80 runs per condition plotted against cost.

Hacker News · security·Sep 8, 02:58 UTC · 8d agoAI researchHN 131↑ · 50 comments

SWE-Bench Pro Verified: A Reliable Benchmark for Software Engineering Agents

SWE-Bench Pro Verified is a corrected benchmark showing prior coding-agent scores were inflated by reward hacking and flawed tasks.

Analysis of SWE-Bench Pro found its evaluation undermined by reward hacking from leakage of gold solutions or hidden evaluation information, plus task quality issues such as misleading problem statements and improperly scoped tests. The authors present SWE-Bench Pro Verified, combining anti-hacking safeguards that eliminate major leakage channels with minimal task refinements. Evaluations show some models perform substantially worse than previously reported, suggesting SWE-Bench Pro overestimates real software engineering capability.

Hugging Face daily papers·Sep 7, 20:00 UTC · 8d agoAI research1

Senior engineers are spending their week cleaning up AI-generated code

New Relic study finds AI-generated code doubles critical runtime issues, with senior engineers losing a third of their week to fixes.

A New Relic survey of U.S. technology leaders reports AI now writes the majority of shipped code, with senior SRE and DevOps engineers spending up to a third of their week triaging and refactoring it. A large majority of organizations had at least one AI-related production failure in the past six months, and roughly three in ten saw newly introduced security vulnerabilities. AI-generated code showed nearly twice as many critical runtime issues as peer-reviewed human-authored code, with gaps concentrated in edge cases, concurrency, deprecated APIs, and complex state changes. Most teams now prompt AI tools to embed logs and traces directly into generated code.

Help Net Security·Aug 24, 04:22 UTC · 23d agoAI industry1

Diffs vs. Whole Files: An Empirical Comparison of Iterative Edit-Based and Direct Generation for Flutter/Dart Code Models

Empirical study finds direct whole-file generation beats iterative diff-based editing for Flutter/Dart code models on about 1,790 held-out tasks.

Researchers trained Rainbow-Pony-100M from scratch and fine-tuned Qwen2.5-Coder-0.5B in both direct-generation and diff-based regimes, then evaluated four resulting models on roughly 1,790 Flutter/Dart tasks. Direct generation outperformed diff-based generation on compilation pass rate, bits-per-byte, character-level similarity, and blinded LLM-judge ratings. Diff-based editing is competitive only on short, localized edits in refactoring and error-handling tasks, a property the authors call task locality.

Hugging Face daily papers·Sep 4, 20:00 UTC · 11d agoAI research1

Towards Scalable and Cost-Efficient Vulnerability Detection: A Study on Automatic Query Generation

A study finds LLM-synthesized CodeQL queries improve average F1-score by 82% over baseline queries, offering scalable vulnerability detection versus direct LLM scanning.

Researchers conducted an empirical study evaluating whether LLMs can synthesize executable CodeQL queries from National Vulnerability Database vulnerability data. LLM-generated queries significantly enhanced baseline CodeQL suites, yielding an 82% improvement in average F1-score across a diverse set of real-world vulnerabilities. A cost-benefit analysis shows direct LLM-based scanning of entire repositories is often computationally and financially prohibitive, while LLM query synthesis offers a scalable and cost-effective alternative for large-scale vulnerability detection.

arXiv cs.CR·Sep 9, 16:31 UTC · 6d agoResearch1

τ^τ-Bench: An Environment for End-To-End, Realistic Agent Construction

New τ^τ-bench tasks coding agents with building deployable customer-service agents; best config, Claude Opus 5, passes only 23.9% of simulations.

Researchers introduce τ^τ-bench, an end-to-end benchmark where a developer agent must build a complete customer-service agent from real business records, a client with requirements, a production API, an inherited codebase, and cost/model limits, then is scored by deploying it against held-out simulated users. Across 53 tasks in four domains, the strongest configuration, Claude Opus 5 under Claude Code, passes just 23.9% of evaluation simulations versus an 82.2% expert-authored reference ceiling. Failure modes mirror those of human developers: shallow queries instead of deep record comprehension, almost no client communication, and shipping the first architecture that runs rather than experimenting.

Hugging Face daily papers·Sep 3, 20:00 UTC · 12d agoAI research

"They don't care about this": A Systematic Study of TEE Build Reproducibility in the Wild

91% of 115 surveyed TEE deployments across Intel SGX, TDX, and AMD SEV fail to provide reproducible builds needed for verifiable remote attestation.

A systematic study of 115 TEE deployments found 91% were not reproducible and 80% lacked both source code and a reference build, undermining remote attestation guarantees. Interviews with 12 developers of 50 Intel SGX projects confirmed that only one participant treats reproducibility as a development priority. The authors identify technical barriers such as embedded timestamps plus ecosystem-level issues like lack of build-environment control in multi-stakeholder projects, and call for holistic, committed reproducibility practices.

arXiv cs.CR·Sep 10, 11:43 UTC · 6d agoResearch

Real-SWE: Benchmarking AI models on private, real-world, enterprise codebases

Real-SWE benchmark tests coding agents on licensed private enterprise codebases; top model Fable 5.1 resolves only 38.8% of tasks.

Real-SWE is a new benchmark evaluating frontier AI coding agents on tasks drawn from private production codebases licensed from real companies, spanning billing, tax calculation, and cross-service migrations. Fable 5.1 with Claude Code leads at 38.8% resolution rate (pass@1 over eight runs), followed by GPT-6 Astra Codex CLI at 33.8% and Gemini 3.8 Flash Gemini CLI at 31.2%. Tasks use native harnesses and realistic tooling including Docker, Kubernetes, PostgreSQL, Redis, and Linear; median reference solutions edit 11 files versus 6 for DeepSWE and FrontierCode.

Hacker News · AI·Sep 12, 20:25 UTC · 3d agoAI researchHN 45↑ · 31 comments

Ask HN: Anyone still coding like 2021? Where do you work?

Hacker News users debate coding without LLMs, with one developer fired for refusing AI tools and others describing daily hand-coding practice to counter skill atrophy.

An Ask HN thread collects experiences of developers who still write code without LLM assistance. One contributor says he was fired for political reasons after refusing to use LLMs despite adequate stated performance, and observes fewer job ads now require LLM use. Others describe starting each day with a LeetCode problem or 30-60 minutes of hand-coding to stay sharp, contractual bans on AI-generated code for a government-adjacent embedded product over unresolved copyright issues, and inconsistent corporate policies where ChatGPT or Codex use flip-flops between allowed and blocked while a CIO mandates 70-80% AI-generated code next year.

Hacker News · AI·Sep 9, 13:41 UTC · 6d agoAI industryHN 47↑ · 54 comments2

Putting models to the secure coding test: Plan vs default mode

Datadog Security Labs tested Sonnet 5, Composer 2.5, and GPT 5.5 to see if plan mode yields more secure code than default mode.

Datadog Security Labs evaluated whether plan mode produces measurably more secure code than default mode. The test covered three frontier coding models: Sonnet 5, Composer 2.5, and GPT 5.5. The results inform how engineering teams should configure AI coding assistants to reduce insecure code. This is an AI security evaluation, not an incident report.

Datadog Security Labs·Aug 19, 00:00 UTC · 28d agoAI safety & security

My business partner sent a 5K vibe-coded PR that he didn't even test

A developer's business partner shipped a 5,236-line untested vibe-coded payments backend PR whose endpoints failed basic testing.

The author describes reviewing a pull request with 5,236 additions for a payments backend that a business partner generated largely with AI in a single day without testing. The PR's AI-written documentation included redundant boilerplate (e.g., 'returns 400 on error') but omitted operational details like where to obtain API keys, and the endpoints failed when tested. The post is a critical opinion piece on vibe coding and perceived skill atrophy among developers who rely on AI for everything.

Hacker News · security·Sep 8, 01:48 UTC · 8d agoAI industryHN 46↑ · 75 comments1

Claude, Codex, and Hermes installed unowned code inside corporate networks

Analysis found 227 install commands from Claude, Codex, and Hermes agents inside corporate networks pointing to packages with no verifiable owner.

Researchers found 227 install commands issued by the AI coding agents Claude, Codex, and Hermes inside corporate environments, with the referenced packages having no clear owner. The finding highlights agentic software supply-chain risk, as AI agents can pull unverified third-party code into production networks without organizational oversight. The article is published in Ars Technica's security section and frames this as an emerging governance gap for AI-driven development.

Ars Technica · Security·Aug 27, 14:00 UTC · 19d agoAI safety & security in the wild2

More than half of AI

CyberScoop·Aug 7, 17:10 UTC · Aug 7, 2026Exploit / PoC

An Empirical Security Analysis of Open-Source Software Used in Onboard Satellite Systems

Study of 126 onboard satellite OSS repositories finds 2,827 security findings, 72% medium severity or higher, dominated by memory safety and code quality weaknesses.

Researchers performed an empirical security analysis of 126 public repositories of open-source software used in onboard satellite systems using SBOM generation, software composition analysis, static application security testing, infrastructure-as-code analysis, and secret scanning. After cleaning and deduplication the pipeline produced 2,827 findings, with medium-severity findings accounting for 49% and 72% classified medium or higher. A CWE-based taxonomy mapped all findings to eight weakness families, with Memory Safety and Code Quality dominating, followed by Input Validation and Injection. Project-developed code accounted for 81.4% of findings, though external dependency code remained relevant; findings do not establish mission-specific exploitability.

arXiv cs.CR·Sep 14, 11:54 UTC · 2d agoResearch1

CS-Guard: Benchmarking LLM Guardrails for Code Generation Security

CS-Guard benchmark shows LLM code-generation guardrails fail widely, with ~50% jailbreak ASR text-to-code and up to 100% code-to-code.

Researchers introduce CS-Guard, the first systematic benchmark for evaluating LLM guardrails for code generation security, covering text-to-code (1,000 malware-generation prompts, 7 jailbreak attacks, and a novel fictional scenario attack) and code-to-code (331 prompts across infilling, completion, and translation). They evaluate 9 guardrails across seven LLMs, finding average jailbreak attack success rates around 50% for text-to-code and 14.4% to nearly 100% for code-to-code. The fictional scenario attack achieves ASR close to 100% across many guardrails, raising reliability concerns for real-world software development. The benchmark and data are released publicly.

arXiv cs.CR·Sep 9, 06:50 UTC · 7d agoAI safety & security1

Bad Likert Judge: A Novel Multi-Turn Technique to Jailbreak LLMs by Misusing Their Evaluation Capability

Unit 42 details the Bad Likert Judge multi-turn jailbreak that abuses LLMs' evaluation capability, raising attack success rates over 60% across six frontier models.

Palo Alto Networks Unit 42 describes the Bad Likert Judge technique, a multi-turn jailbreak that asks a target LLM to act as a Likert-scale judge scoring the harmfulness of example responses. The highest-rated example in each scale can carry harmful content, bypassing the model's internal guardrails. Testing across six state-of-the-art text-generation LLMs showed an average attack success rate increase of more than 60% versus plain attack prompts, with tested models anonymized. The technique targets edge cases rather than typical use, and the article positions the work as guidance for defenders on potential jailbreak risks.

Palo Alto Unit 42·Aug 17, 12:34 UTC · 29d agoAI safety & security

Emacs arbitrary code execution: incomplete fix for CVE-2024-53920

Incomplete fix for Emacs CVE-2024-53920 allows arbitrary code execution when viewing or editing untrusted files in non-Lisp modes like Perl flymake.

Bas Alberts of GitHub Security Lab discovered that the patch for CVE-2024-53920, an arbitrary code execution flaw in Emacs, was incomplete. Code execution remains possible when viewing or editing untrusted text files in modes other than Emacs Lisp mode, for example Perl files with flymake mode enabled. All Emacs versions affected by the original CVE remain affected by the incomplete fix.

oss-security·Sep 14, 14:36 UTC · 1d agoVulnerabilityCVE-2024-53920

Three in four AI-generated vulnerability patches leave something broken

Help Net Security·Aug 6, 00:00 UTC · Aug 6, 2026VulnerabilityCVE-2026-8512

Coding Agents Have Converged: Why the SWE-bench Leaderboard Can No Longer Order Its Top Entries, and What to Measure Instead

Audit of 254 SWE-bench submissions finds top coding-agent entries statistically inseparable, so small leaderboard gaps no longer establish rank.

The paper audits 254 SWE-bench submissions across four splits without running models. On Verified, the top two entries each resolve 396 of 500 instances, and exact paired McNemar tests separate none of the 29 adjacent top-thirty pairs at alpha=0.05. Within-model scaffold score ranges reach 29.8 percentage points, versus an 8.8-point spread among the top thirty. The authors release a five-step audit protocol and recommend reporting comparison-set-specific resolution and model-scaffold provenance.

arXiv cs.AI / cs.LG / cs.CL·Sep 15, 16:29 UTC · 20h agoAI research

How much of F-Droid is LLM generated?

A FOSS maintainer manually graded 102 F-Droid apps from the September 12, 2026 update batch, finding many show signs of LLM-generated code.

A student and FOSS app maintainer reviewed 102 apps pushed to F-Droid on September 12, 2026, assigning each a three-tier rating for likelihood of LLM-authored code (mostly AI >50%, hard to say/mostly human, no signs of AI). The heuristic relies on commit aesthetics, README and branding style, and the presence of agentic infrastructure like Claude Code or Codex, which automatically places an app in the 'mostly AI' tier. Example ratings include Amber (Nostr event signer) as mostly AI, and Aria for Misskey as showing no AI signs. The author stresses reliable detection of LLM-generated code from text alone is impossible, so ratings are approximate.

Hacker News · AI·Sep 15, 09:47 UTC · 1d agoAI researchHN 46↑ · 23 comments

SEMA-GUARD: Semantic and Graph-Based Vulnerability Detection in Assembly Code

SEMA-GUARD uses semantic analysis and graph neural networks to detect vulnerabilities in assembly code, achieving 85.1% accuracy on a Juliet-derived benchmark.

SEMA-GUARD is a framework that detects vulnerabilities in compiled programs when source code is unavailable, targeting malware, firmware, and embedded systems analysis. It enriches control flow graphs with low-level execution semantics including stack manipulations, memory accesses, and data flow. Evaluated on a Juliet Test Suite set compiled to assembly and split into function-level chunks, it achieves 85.1% accuracy and an F1 score of 0.801, outperforming purely statistical or structural approaches.

arXiv cs.CR·Sep 15, 14:35 UTC · 21h agoResearch1

USN-8736-1: Perl vulnerabilities

Ubuntu issued USN-8736-1 fixing two Perl regex flaws that could cause denial of service, code execution, or security-restriction bypass.

Ubuntu released a security notice addressing two Perl vulnerabilities in regular expression handling. CVE-2026-15534 involves mishandling of large inputs during regex matching, enabling out-of-bounds heap reads or writes that could lead to denial of service or arbitrary code execution. CVE-2026-19487 involves incorrect matching for regexes with alternative branches, allowing security restrictions to be bypassed. Users are advised to apply the updated packages.

Ubuntu Security Notices·Sep 8, 14:25 UTC · 7d agoAdvisoryCVE-2026-15534CVE-2026-19487

IndicTriMix: Developing Language Identification Datasets and Models for Tri-Language Code-Mixing

Researchers release IndicTriMix benchmarks and fine-tuned MuRIL and XLM-RoBERTa models for token-level language identification in tri-language code-mixed text.

The paper formulates token-level language identification in code-mixed text as a sequence labeling task and fine-tunes MuRIL and XLM-RoBERTa transformer models for Indian languages. It evaluates on Hindi, Gujarati, and Bengali configurations with manually annotated test sets and proposes two code-mixed generation approaches using parallel trilingual sentences. A public benchmark, annotated test sets, and fine-tuned models are released for reproducibility.

arXiv cs.AI / cs.LG / cs.CL·Sep 10, 17:36 UTC · 5d agoAI research1

Coding Is Over. Get over It

A JPMorgan Chase engineer reflects on AI agents outpacing hand-coding, questioning ROI while predicting inference costs will become negligible.

A personal essay by a software engineer with 15+ years at JPMorgan Chase describes how AI coding agents now outperform him and have transformed his workflow. He argues AI ROI is unmeasurable, praises cheap small models such as GPT 5.6 Luna, and cites Claude Code head Boris Cherny's advice to discard AGENTS.md/Claude.md rule files. He contends coding is no longer scarce, worries entry-level jobs will be automated first, and predicts AI's bigger impact lies outside coding.

Hacker News · security·Sep 12, 13:16 UTC · 3d agoAI industryHN 20↑ · 26 comments2

Quoting Boris Cherny

Anthropic's Boris Cherny says AI-generated production code needs a higher quality bar enforced with tests, fuzzers, and automated reviews.

In remarks quoted by Simon Willison, Anthropic's Boris Cherny argued that production code written by Claude should meet a higher quality bar than human-written code. He described guardrails at Anthropic including lint rules, extensive tests, Claude-driven end-to-end tests, daily Claude-powered fuzzers, and automated code and security reviews. He warned that without such controls AI-generated code can become hard to maintain.

Simon Willison·Sep 11, 17:47 UTC · 4d agoAI tools & infra1