The paper introduces a two‑layer detector to prevent ‘slopsquatting’—the risk of local coding LLMs fabricating Python package names that adversaries can pre‑register on PyPI. The first layer checks PyPI for existence, while the second uses a Random Forest classifier on ten name‑and‑metadata features; an import reconciler resolves naming mismatches. Embedded in a LangGraph state machine, the system retries at escalating temperatures and falls back to stronger models, achieving hallucination‑free code in 76% of 300 curated prompts and recovering additional runs through intra‑ and cross‑model retries.
By Akash Raj, Sargam Sahu
The paper introduces the Neutral Prompting Attack (NPA), a stealthy method that uses semantically benign instructions to increase the likelihood of large language models hallucinating non‑existent package names in coding agents. Unlike traditional dependency steering, NPA does not target a specific package but shifts the model’s output toward more speculative names. Experiments across multiple LLMs show that NPA raises hallucination rates, affects pip install success, alters the distribution of hallucinated packages, and bypasses existing static‑analysis, LLM‑based, and agent‑based defenses.
By Chia-Yi Hsu, Chia-Mu Yu, Chun-Ying Huang, Jun Sakuma
arXiv:2606. 03489v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: While Large Language Models (LLMs) excel in code generation, they remain prone to replicating subtle yet critical vulnerabilities endemic to their training data.
By Wenqi Chen, Ziyan Zhang, Bing Wang, Lin Liu, Hengheng Zhang, Zhengsu Chen
arXiv:2606. 16244v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models routinely generate code with exploitable security flaws.
By Xiaoyun Xu, Lichao Wu, Jona te Lintelo, Siyu Zhang, Stjepan Picek
While Large Language Models (LLMs) excel in code generation, they remain prone to replicating subtle yet critical vulnerabilities endemic to their training data. Current alignment techniques, such as Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) and Reinforcement Learning (RL), typically apply coarse-grained optimization at the sequence level.
arXiv:2605. 17062v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Spracklen et al.
By Aleksandr Churilov (Independent Researcher)
arXiv:2603. 03824v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Humans often become more self-aware under threat, yet can lose self-awareness when absorbed in a task; we hypothesize that language models exhibit environment-dependent \textit{evaluation awareness}.
By Maheep Chaudhary
arXiv:2607. 24392v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Jailbreak defenses are essential for protecting large language models (LLMs), but they can also introduce secondary costs that weaken model utility.
By Tong Zhang, Zexin Li, Simin Chen, Yun Peng
arXiv:2606. 30587v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Researchers and practitioners increasingly apply Large Language Models (LLMs) for automated vulnerability detection.
By Asif Shahriar, Hongyu Cai, Hadjer Benkraouda, Gang Wang, Z. Berkay Celik
arXiv:2605. 12813v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) achieve strong performance across many tasks but remain vulnerable to hallucinations, making it important to systematically evaluate their reliability under realistic adversarial inputs.
By Buyun Liang, Jinqi Luo, Liangzu Peng, Kwan Ho Ryan Chan, Darshan Thaker, Kaleab A. Kinfu, Fengrui Tian, Hamed Hassani, Ren\'e Vidal
The paper introduces the Static‑Pass Dynamic‑Fail (SPDF) phenomenon, showing that static analysis can miss vulnerabilities that are exploitable at runtime. Using a three‑stage pipeline—static scanning, LLM‑driven CWE reasoning, and autonomous exploit verification—it evaluated 1,355 Python samples and found that 14.53% of samples that passed static checks were actually exploitable. The study highlights that static‑analysis success and runtime security are distinct assurance layers, especially for AI‑generated and security‑sensitive code.
By Jessica Pourleyli, Maitreyee Das Urmi, Glaucia Melo
arXiv:2607. 01859v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Safety training for large language models (LLMs) is conducted predominantly in English, leaving uncertain how well safety mechanisms generalize to low-resource languages and mixed-language code-switching.
By Joshua Adrian Cahyono