arXiv AI

SWE-Test: Benchmarking LLM Vulnerability Discovery via Input Prediction

arXiv Machine Learning
Aug 27

FuzzingBrain-Bench V1: Evaluating Open-Ended Bug Discovery by LLMs

FuzzingBrain‑Bench V1 is a new benchmark that tests large language models (LLMs) on their ability to discover software bugs in open‑source projects. Unlike prior benchmarks that focus on a single target vulnerability, this benchmark gives models a Docker‑based harness and asks them to generate inputs that trigger as many distinct crashes as possible. The first version contains 77 challenges from 43 projects (36 C, 32 C++, 9 Java/JVM) and evaluates Claude Haiku 4.5, Claude Sonnet 4.6, and Claude Opus 4.8, with Claude Opus 4.8 achieving the highest score by triggering crashes in 60 of 77 challenges.

By Ze Sheng, Aleksandar Kezic, Zhicheng Chen, Jeff Huang
arXiv AI
Oct 9

TestJack: Should you trust the results in coding benchmarks? Agentic Coding Benchmarks Auditing via Evaluator Evolution

TestJack is a scalable framework that audits large language model (LLM) coding agents by generating new tests for each trial, focusing on prompt requirements that may be violated. It keeps only the tests passed by the ground‑truth patch and re‑examines failures, providing replayable evidence for each confirmed error. In experiments across six model backends and five benchmarks, TestJack found that 34.4% of trials deemed correct actually violated task requirements, reducing the overall resolution rate from 50.6% to 33.2%.

By Shuangjie Yao, Hao Wang, Koushik Sen, Simin Chen, Baishakhi Ray, Dawn Song
arXiv AI
2d ago

Benchmarking LLM Agents for Behaviorally Adequate Test Generation from Software Requirements

The paper introduces Req2Test-Bench, a benchmark of 5,086 instances linking natural‑language Gherkin requirements to developer‑written test implementations across five languages and four BDD frameworks. It evaluates eight agent–model–reasoning setups, finding that while the best configuration (Codex with DeepSeek‑V4.1‑Flash) produces passing tests for 82.8% of cases, only 33.8% are behaviorally adequate, as measured by kill‑completeness. The study highlights diminishing returns from scaling agents, the impact of under‑specified requirements, and the potential of requirement‑grounded harnesses to improve test generation.

By Binhang Qi, Yiming Liu, Yun Lin, Yangjie Zhou, Hailong Sun, Jin Song Dong
arXiv AI
Jun 30

Reinforcement Learning for Software Vulnerability Analysis: A Systematic Review with Emphasis on C/C++ Source Code and Static Analysis

arXiv:2606. 28403v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Vulnerability detection in C/C++ software remains a major security challenge due to code complexity, manual memory management, and the limitations of traditional static analysis.

By Bruno Caro-V\'asquez, Carola Figueroa-Flores, Gast\'on Marquez