跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail

YOUR RESEARCH, IN SIGHT

让下一篇重要论文,不再错过。

覆盖计算机全学科,以 AI 为快捷入口。关注方向、作者和关键词,把发现变成持续的研究积累。

采集已暂停
正在读取账号与研究记录…

全站更新概况

+0新增论文
+0其中 AI 相关
+0已有论文修订
+0新增 AI 导读

arXiv 最近完成扫描:等待完成 · 全站最近入库:2026-11-02 00:39各信源进度 →

统计口径与数据新鲜度

统计 2026-11-03 18:19 — 2026-11-04 18:19(北京时间) · 点击数字查看对应简报;AI 相关包含在新增论文内。

最近完成检查:尚未完成最近发现新增版本:2026-11-02 00:39库内论文最新更新时间:2026-10-30 01:59

每分钟刷新已保存的数据。空检查不代表采集异常;新收录可能包含历史论文。AI 导读按新增版本计数。

8,677 已收录论文7,675 AI 相关1,866 有修订112 HF 社区发现

浏览论文库

时间范围跟随排序:版本更新、本站收录或首次发表。最新收录可能包含历史论文。

找到 2 篇论文 · 按版本更新时间排序等待首次采集
新论文 · v1arXiv:2610.39899

ExploreRepair: Evidence-Specialized Agents for Vulnerability Repair under Information Constraints

Duc Manh Tran, Ratnadira Widyasari, Ivana Clairine Irsan, Huihui Huang, Ting Zhang, David Lo, Rahul Gopinath, Hong Jin Kang

Automated vulnerability repair must often operate with incomplete vulnerability information: developers may lack an accurate vulnerability classification or a provided proof-of-vulnerability (PoV) test, yet still need to produce a repair. Without detailed information, a key challenge is to explore multiple plausible interpretations of the vulnerability before committing to a repair. To address this challenge, we propose ExploreRepair, a vulnerability repair framework that reconciles the vulnerability observations and repair implementations from a team of exploration agents. We first collect these observations and repair implementations from three agents, each tasked with exploring a specific dimension of the vulnerability. Then, a Lesson Aggregator and a Patch Aggregator independently synthesize repairs from these observations and concrete implementations before a final Aggregator reconciles their proposals without benchmark feedback. On PatchEval, ExploreRepair achieves repair success rates of 39.6% and 71.6% with GPT-5.6-Luna and DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash, respectively, exceeding EvoRepair, a state-of-the-art vulnerability repair approach, by 16.0 and 25.4 percentage points. On VulnLoc+, it achieves success rates of 51.4% and 62.9%, respectively, exceeding LoopRepair's variant without PoV tests by 20.0 and 17.1 percentage points.

尚无 AI 解读,展示原文摘要

cs.SE · cs.CR
arXiv ↗PDF ↗
首次观测 · 记录 #1ACL Anthology · ACL 2026:acl:2026.acl-long.1107ACL Anthology · ACL 2026

SecureVibeBench: Benchmarking Secure Vibe Coding of AI Agents via Reconstructing Vulnerability-Introducing Scenarios

Junkai Chen, Huihui Huang Singapore Management University, Yunbo Lyu, Junwen An national university of singaore, National University of Singapore, Jieke Shi Singapore Management University, Chengran Yang, Ting Zhang Monash University, Haoye Tian 等 13 位作者

Large language model-powered code agents are rapidly transforming software engineering, yet the security risks of their generated code have become a critical concern. Existing benchmarks have provided valuable insights, but they fail to capture scenarios in which vulnerabilities are actually introduced by human developers, making fair comparisons between humans and agents infeasible. We therefore introduce SecureVibeBench, a benchmark of 105 C/C++ secure coding tasks sourced from 41 projects in OSS-Fuzz for code agents. SecureVibeBench has the following features: (i) realistic task settings that require multi-file edits in large repositories, (ii) aligned contexts based on real-world open-source vulnerabilities with precisely identified vulnerability introduction points, and (iii) comprehensive evaluation that combines functionality testing and security checking with both static and dynamic oracles. We evaluate 5 popular code agents like OpenHands, supported by 5 LLMs (e.g., Claude sonnet 4.5) on SecureVibeBench. Results show that current agents struggle to produce both correct and secure code, as even the best-performing one, produces merely 23.8% correct and secure solutions on SecureVibeBench.

尚无 AI 解读,展示原文摘要

cs.CL · cs.AI

Proceedings of the 64th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · 2026 · 正式发表

ACL Anthology · ACL 2026 ↗PDF ↗