aiqbench analysis
This research introduces SAGE, a trace-based method designed to pinpoint the earliest stage where LLM agents introduce silent security vulnerabilities during code repair tasks. By analyzing security reasoning logs alongside reconstructed code history, the study reveals that most failures stem from unaddressed security requirements or poor defensive choices rather than the actual code change itself. This approach offers critical insights for hardening autonomous agent workflows against hidden risks that bypass standard syntactic validation.
Where Did the Repair First Go Wrong? Localizing the Origins of Silent Failures in Agentic Vulnerability Repair
arXiv:2610.06163v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Localizing where an LLM-based agent first fails to uphold security during a repair can show which stage of its workflow needs an additional safeguard. This is difficult for silent failures, which are patches that pass syntactic and functional checks but still contain a security vulnerability. Because such patches give no observable failure signal, existing failure attribution methods, which rely on observed task failures and labelled failure steps, are less suited to them. We propose Security Awareness Gap Evaluation (SAGE), a trace-based method that combines an assessment of the security reasoning recorded at each turn with the reconstructed code history to identify the earliest turn at which a repair diverges from the task's security intent. We evaluate SAGE on 95 confirmed silent failures drawn from 3,684 repair traces produced by six agent frameworks and six base models on SecurityEval and CVEfixes. SAGE assigned an origin in 93 cases. Most origins were an unaddressed security requirement or an inadequate defence choice, and only five coincided with the code change itself. When the agent introduced the vulnerable code, the origin preceded the write in 14 of 19 cases. Repeated scoring and a second judge reproduced the origin type more consistently than the exact turn, and agreement was lowest for traces that kept only the final file.
Title:Where Did the Repair First Go Wrong? Localizing the Origins of Silent Failures in Agentic Vulnerability Repair
Abstract:Localizing where an LLM-based agent first fails to uphold security during a repair can show which stage of its workflow needs an additional safeguard. This is difficult for silent failures, which are patches that pass syntactic and functional checks but still contain a security vulnerability. Because such patches give no observable failure signal, existing failure attribution methods, which rely on observed task failures and labelled failure steps, are less suited to them. We propose Security Awareness Gap Evaluation (SAGE), a trace-based method that combines an assessment of the security reasoning recorded at each turn with the reconstructed code history to identify the earliest turn at which a repair diverges from the task's security intent. We evaluate SAGE on 95 confirmed silent failures drawn from 3,684 repair traces produced by six agent frameworks and six base models on SecurityEval and CVEfixes. SAGE assigned an origin in 93 cases. Most origins were an unaddressed security requirement or an inadequate defence choice, and only five coincided with the code change itself. When the agent introduced the vulnerable code, the origin preceded the write in 14 of 19 cases. Repeated scoring and a second judge reproduced the origin type more consistently than the exact turn, and agreement was lowest for traces that kept only the final file.
Cryptography and Security (cs.CR); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Software Engineering (cs.SE)
arXiv:2610.06163 [cs.CR]
(or arXiv:2610.06163v1 [cs.CR] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.06163 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 331 words
