Ratnadira Widyasari

Huu Hung Nguyen, Ting Zhang, Duc Manh Tran et al.

Mapping National Vulnerability Database (NVD) records to vulnerability-fixing commits (VFCs) is crucial for vulnerability analysis but challenging due to sparse explicit links in NVD references. This study explores this mapping's feasibility through an empirical approach. Manual analysis of NVD references showed Git references enable over 86% success, while non-Git references achieve under 14%. Using these findings, we built an automated pipeline extracting 31,942 VFCs from 20,360 NVD records (8.7% of 235,341) with 87% precision, mainly from Git references. To fill gaps, we mined six external security databases, yielding 29,254 VFCs for 18,985 records (8.1%) at 88.4% precision, and GitHub repositories, adding 3,686 VFCs for 2,795 records (1.2%) at 73% precision. Combining these, we mapped 26,710 unique records (11.3% coverage) from 7,634 projects, with overlap between NVD and external databases, plus unique GitHub contributions. Despite success with Git references, 88.7% of records remain unmapped, highlighting the difficulty without Git links. This study offers insights for enhancing vulnerability datasets and guiding future automated security research.

Ting Zhang, Yikun Li, Chengran Yang et al.

Software vulnerabilities remain one of the most persistent threats to modern digital infrastructure. While static application security testing (SAST) tools have long served as the first line of defense, they suffer from high false-positive rates. This article presents TitanCA, a collaborative project between Singapore Management University and GovTech Singapore that orchestrates multiple large language model (LLM)-powered agents into a unified vulnerability discovery pipeline. Applied in open-source software, TitanCA has discovered 203 confirmed zero-day vulnerabilities and yielded 118 CVEs. We describe the four-module architecture, i.e., matching, filtering, inspection, and adaptation, and share key lessons from building and deploying an LLM-based vulnerability discovery solution in practice.

Yunbo Lyu, Jieke Shi, Hong Jin Kang et al.

The SZZ algorithm is the dominant technique for identifying bug-inducing commits and underpins many software engineering tasks, such as defect prediction and vulnerability analysis. Despite numerous variants, including recent LLM-based approaches, performance remains limited on developer-annotated datasets (e.g., recall of 0.552 on the Linux kernel). A key limitation is the reliance on git blame, which traces line-level changes within the same file, failing in common scenarios such as ghost and cross-file cases-making nearly one-quarter of bug-inducing commits inherently untraceable. Moreover, current approaches follow fixed pipelines that restrict iterative reasoning and exploration, unlike developers who investigate bugs through an interactive, multi-tool process. To address these challenges, we propose AgentSZZ, an agent-based framework that leverages LLM-driven agents to explore repositories and identify bug-inducing commits. Unlike prior methods, AgentSZZ integrates task-specific tools, domain knowledge, and a ReAct-style loop to enable adaptive and causal tracing of bugs. A structured compression module further improves efficiency by reducing redundant context while preserving key evidence. Extensive experiments on three widely used datasets show that AgentSZZ consistently outperforms state-of-the-art SZZ algorithms across all settings, achieving F1-score gains of up to 27.2% over prior LLM-based approaches. The improvements are especially pronounced in challenging scenarios such as cross-file and ghost commits, with recall gains of up to 300% and 60%, respectively. Ablation studies show that task-specific tools and domain knowledge are critical, while compression tool outputs reduce token consumption by over 30% with negligible impact. The replication package is available.

Ivana Clairine Irsan, Ratnadira Widyasari, Ting Zhang et al.

Attacks can exploit zero-day or one-day vulnerabilities that are not publicly disclosed. To detect these vulnerabilities, security researchers monitor development activities in open-source repositories to identify unreported security patches. The sheer volume of commits makes this task infeasible to accomplish manually. Consequently, security patch detectors commonly trained and evaluated on security patches linked from vulnerability reports in the National Vulnerability Database (NVD). In this study, we assess the effectiveness of these detectors when applied in-the-wild. Our results show that models trained on NVD-derived data show substantially decreased performance, with decreases in F1-score of up to 90\% when tested on in-the-wild security patches, rendering them impractical for real-world use. An analysis comparing security patches identified in-the-wild and commits linked from NVD reveals that they can be easily distinguished from each other. Security patches associated with NVD have different distribution of commit messages, vulnerability types, and composition of changes. These differences suggest that NVD may be unsuitable as the \textit{sole} source of data for training models to detect security patches. We find that constructing a dataset that combines security patches from NVD data with a small subset of manually identified security patches can improve model robustness.

Yue Liu, Ratnadira Widyasari, Yanjie Zhao et al.

AI coding assistants are now widely used in software development. Software developers increasingly integrate AI-generated code into their codebases to improve productivity. Prior studies have shown that AI-generated code may contain code quality issues under controlled settings. However, we still know little about the real-world impact of AI-generated code on software quality and maintenance after it is introduced into production repositories. In other words, it remains unclear whether such issues are quickly fixed or persist and accumulate over time as technical debt. In this paper, we conduct a large-scale empirical study on the technical debt introduced by AI coding assistants in the wild. To achieve that, we built a dataset of 304,362 verified AI-authored commits from 6,275 GitHub repositories, covering five widely used AI coding assistants. For each commit, we run static analysis before and after the change to precisely attribute which code smells, bugs, and security issues the AI introduced. We then track each introduced issue from the introducing commit to the latest repository revision to study its lifecycle. Our results show that we identified 484,606 distinct issues, and that code smells are by far the most common type, accounting for 89.1% of all issues. We also find that more than 15% of commits from every AI coding assistant introduce at least one issue, although the rates vary across tools. More importantly, 24.2% of tracked AI-introduced issues still survive at the latest revision of the repository. These findings show that AI-generated code can introduce long-term maintenance costs into real software projects and highlight the need for stronger quality assurance in AI-assisted development.

Truong Giang Nguyen, Thanh Le-Cong, Hong Jin Kang et al.

With the increasing reliance on Open Source Software, users are exposed to third-party library vulnerabilities. Software Composition Analysis (SCA) tools have been created to alert users of such vulnerabilities. SCA requires the identification of vulnerability-fixing commits. Prior works have proposed methods that can automatically identify such vulnerability-fixing commits. However, identifying such commits is highly challenging, as only a very small minority of commits are vulnerability fixing. Moreover, code changes can be noisy and difficult to analyze. We observe that noise can occur at different levels of detail, making it challenging to detect vulnerability fixes accurately. To address these challenges and boost the effectiveness of prior works, we propose MiDas (Multi-Granularity Detector for Vulnerability Fixes). Unique from prior works, Midas constructs different neural networks for each level of code change granularity, corresponding to commit-level, file-level, hunk-level, and line-level, following their natural organization. It then utilizes an ensemble model that combines all base models to generate the final prediction. This design allows MiDas to better handle the noisy and highly imbalanced nature of vulnerability-fixing commit data. Additionally, to reduce the human effort required to inspect code changes, we have designed an effort-aware adjustment for Midas's outputs based on commit length. The evaluation results demonstrate that MiDas outperforms the current state-of-the-art baseline in terms of AUC by 4.9% and 13.7% on Java and Python-based datasets, respectively. Furthermore, in terms of two effort-aware metrics, EffortCost@L and Popt@L, MiDas also outperforms the state-of-the-art baseline, achieving improvements of up to 28.2% and 15.9% on Java, and 60% and 51.4% on Python, respectively.

Xin Zhou, Martin Weyssow, Ratnadira Widyasari et al.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are widely utilized in software engineering (SE) tasks, such as code generation and automated program repair. However, their reliance on extensive and often undisclosed pre-training datasets raises significant concerns about data leakage, where the evaluation benchmark data is unintentionally ``seen'' by LLMs during the model's construction phase. The data leakage issue could largely undermine the validity of LLM-based research and evaluations. Despite the increasing use of LLMs in the SE community, there is no comprehensive study that assesses the extent of data leakage in SE benchmarks for LLMs yet. To address this gap, this paper presents the first large-scale analysis of data leakage in 83 SE benchmarks concerning LLMs. Our results show that in general, data leakage in SE benchmarks is minimal, with average leakage ratios of only 4.8\%, 2.8\%, and 0.7\% for Python, Java, and C/C++ benchmarks, respectively. However, some benchmarks exhibit relatively higher leakage ratios, which raises concerns about their bias in evaluation. For instance, QuixBugs and BigCloneBench have leakage ratios of 100.0\% and 55.7\%, respectively. Furthermore, we observe that data leakage has a substantial impact on LLM evaluation. We also identify key causes of high data leakage, such as the direct inclusion of benchmark data in pre-training datasets and the use of coding platforms like LeetCode for benchmark construction. To address the data leakage, we introduce \textbf{LessLeak-Bench}, a new benchmark that removes leaked samples from the 83 SE benchmarks, enabling more reliable LLM evaluations in future research. Our study enhances the understanding of data leakage in SE benchmarks and provides valuable insights for future research involving LLMs in SE.

Martin Weyssow, Chengran Yang, Junkai Chen et al.

Large language models (LLMs) have shown promising performance in software vulnerability detection, yet their reasoning capabilities remain unreliable. We propose R2Vul, a method that combines reinforcement learning from AI feedback (RLAIF) and structured reasoning distillation to teach small code LLMs to detect vulnerabilities while generating security-aware explanations. Unlike prior chain-of-thought and instruction tuning approaches, R2Vul rewards well-founded over deceptively plausible vulnerability explanations through RLAIF, which results in more precise detection and high-quality reasoning generation. To support RLAIF, we construct the first multilingual preference dataset for vulnerability detection, comprising 18,000 high-quality samples in C\#, JavaScript, Java, Python, and C. We evaluate R2Vul across five programming languages and against four static analysis tools, eight state-of-the-art LLM-based baselines, and various fine-tuning approaches. Our results demonstrate that a 1.5B R2Vul model exceeds the performance of its 32B teacher model and leading commercial LLMs such as Claude-4-Opus. Furthermore, we introduce a lightweight calibration step that reduces false positive rates under varying imbalanced data distributions. Finally, through qualitative analysis, we show that both LLM and human evaluators consistently rank R2Vul model's reasoning higher than other reasoning-based baselines.

Terry Yue Zhuo, Minh Chien Vu, Jenny Chim et al.

Task automation has been greatly empowered by the recent advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) via Python code, where the tasks ranging from software engineering development to general-purpose reasoning. While current benchmarks have shown that LLMs can solve tasks using programs like human developers, the majority of their evaluations are limited to short and self-contained algorithmic tasks or standalone function calls. Solving challenging and practical tasks requires the capability of utilizing diverse function calls as tools to efficiently implement functionalities like data analysis and web development. In addition, using multiple tools to solve a task needs compositional reasoning by accurately understanding complex instructions. Fulfilling both of these characteristics can pose a great challenge for LLMs.To assess how well LLMs can solve challenging and practical tasks via programs, we introduce BigCodeBench, a benchmark that challenges LLMs to invoke multiple function calls as tools from 139 libraries and 7 domains for 1,140 fine-grained tasks. To evaluate LLMs rigorously, each task encompasses 5.6 test cases with an average branch coverage of 99%. In addition, we propose a natural-language-oriented variant of BigCodeBench, BigCodeBench-Instruct, that automatically transforms the original docstrings into short instructions only with essential information. Our extensive evaluation of 60 LLMs shows that LLMs are not yet capable of following complex instructions to use function calls precisely, with scores up to 60%, significantly lower than the human performance of 97%. The results underscore the need for further advancements in this area.

Sicong Cao, Xiaobing Sun, Ratnadira Widyasari et al.

The remarkable achievements of Artificial Intelligence (AI) algorithms, particularly in Machine Learning (ML) and Deep Learning (DL), have fueled their extensive deployment across multiple sectors, including Software Engineering (SE). However, due to their black-box nature, these promising AI-driven SE models are still far from being deployed in practice. This lack of explainability poses unwanted risks for their applications in critical tasks, such as vulnerability detection, where decision-making transparency is of paramount importance. This paper endeavors to elucidate this interdisciplinary domain by presenting a systematic literature review of approaches that aim to improve the explainability of AI models within the context of SE. The review canvasses work appearing in the most prominent SE & AI conferences and journals, and spans 108 papers across 23 unique SE tasks. Based on three key Research Questions (RQs), we aim to (1) summarize the SE tasks where XAI techniques have shown success to date; (2) classify and analyze different XAI techniques; and (3) investigate existing evaluation approaches. Based on our findings, we identified a set of challenges remaining to be addressed in existing studies, together with a set of guidelines highlighting potential opportunities we deemed appropriate and important for future work.