Yuchen Chen

Weifeng Sun, Quanjun Zhang, Yuchen Chen et al.

Large language models (LLMs) are widely used for code generation, yet they can reproduce vulnerable implementations learned from insecure training patterns. Prior work has mainly explored inference-time hardening, which reduces insecure generations without modifying the target model but relies on auxiliary components and adds runtime overhead. We conduct the first systematic study of model editing as a model-level hardening mechanism for secure code generation. We evaluate 3 state-of-the-art editing methods across diverse LLM families and compare them with CoSec, a representative inference-time approach, focusing on security, robustness, generalization, and functional correctness. Model editing yields larger security gains than CoSec on seen vulnerability types, improving security ratios by 15%-25% over vanilla models, with gains remaining stable under prompt perturbations. However, these improvements transfer unreliably to unseen vulnerabilities and can reduce functional correctness. To mitigate this trade-off, we propose SafeEdit, a post-edit refinement method combining functional tuning with edit-aware regularization. Across eight target LLMs, SafeEdit improves Pass@1 over UltraEdit by 11.73/13.70/15.50 percentage points at T=0.1/0.4/0.8 while largely preserving security. Compared with CoSec, it achieves relative security-ratio gains of 7.54%-12.04%. Additional evaluation on CodeGuard+ confirms improved joint secure-and-correct generation. SafeEdit and CoSec are also complementary, and their combination can further improve security while maintaining strong functional correctness. Overall, our results provide evidence-backed guidance for applying model editing to secure code generation.

Weifeng Sun, Jieke Shi, Zhou Yang et al.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for code generation, yet generated programs may exhibit social bias through unfair or differential treatment of sensitive demographic attributes. While prior work mainly studies direct code generation, bias in reasoning-based generation remains underexplored. We conduct the first systematic study of social bias in reasoning-based code generation, evaluating 9 standard LLMs and large reasoning models (LRMs) on realistic bias-sensitive tasks across three human-centered decision scenarios. We find that reasoning generally reduces bias, lowering the average bias rate from 0.64 to 0.40, but the effect varies substantially across models. Meanwhile, code quality is not consistently preserved, with the average quality dropping from 0.72 to 0.59. Biased reasoning strongly predicts biased code, and adjusting generation configurations alone is insufficient for robust mitigation. Based on these findings, we propose ProbeDebias, a reasoning-aware framework that detects and rewrites biased reasoning traces before code generation. ProbeDebias achieves 87.76% F1 for reasoning-bias detection and reduces code bias by 83.73% on average while largely preserving quality. Compared with SOTA baselines, it further reduces average bias by 52.70%-54.42% and improves quality by 9.79%-36.79%. These results highlight the value of reasoning-stage analysis for trustworthy code generation.