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。

部分采集异常
正在读取账号与研究记录…

全站更新概况

+1151新增论文
+896其中 AI 相关
+86已有论文修订
+100新增 AI 导读

arXiv 最近完成扫描:2026-11-06 17:18 · 全站最近入库:2026-11-06 13:12各信源进度 →

统计口径与数据新鲜度

统计 2026-11-05 17:40 — 2026-11-06 17:40(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:2026-11-06 17:18最近发现新增版本:2026-11-06 13:12库内论文最新更新时间:2026-11-06 02:59

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。

17,100 已收录论文14,661 AI 相关4,055 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。部分信源异常,查看状态 →

找到 2 篇论文 · 按版本更新时间排序上轮扫描起点 2026-11-06 17:16(北京时间)
版本更新 · v2arXiv:2608.25667

AI Slop and Hallucinations in Vulnerability Assessment: A Survey on Reasoning Failures and Trustworthy Mitigation

Junchen Ding, Jialiang Dong, Yichen Zhu, Yi Liu, Gelei Deng, Willy Susilo, Siqi Ma, Yuekang Li

The integration of Large Language Models (LLMs) into cybersecurity has transformed vulnerability assessment, but it has also produced a trustworthiness crisis driven by the unchecked proliferation of "AI slop." These artifacts, hallucinated vulnerabilities, plausible but incorrect patches, and semantically repackaged bug reports, impose a cognitive burden on human triage pipelines that mirrors a denial-of-service attack. This paper surveys the empirical evidence, identifies a unifying mechanism, and traces a path toward trustworthy triage. We formalize a taxonomy of AI slop grounded in a structured literature review and dissect its root cause: the gap between the causal deductive reasoning of security experts and the autoregressive probabilistic generation of current LLMs. We operationalize this gap through a measurable proxy, the Deductive Coverage Score, and show that chain-of-thought prompting and tool-using agents narrow but do not close it. We review mitigation strategies and argue that passive detection and watermarking target provenance rather than correctness, facing fundamental entropy constraints. We instead advocate for active neuro-symbolic verification, mapping each pipeline component to prior systems with documented limits on security inputs. Finally, we specify two evaluation instruments, CVE-Bench and Slop-Score, including dataset construction, metric formulas, and anti-gaming provisions. By shifting evaluation from linguistic fluency to mathematical verifiability, this survey provides a roadmap for securing emerging AI-driven triage systems.

尚无 AI 解读,展示原文摘要

cs.CR · cs.AI
arXiv ↗PDF ↗
版本更新 · v2arXiv:2308.01463

SemDiff: Binary Similarity Detection by Diffing Key-Semantics Graphs

Zian Liu, Xiaoxi Meng, Viet Vo, Siqi Ma, Chao Chen, Dongxi Liu, Jun Zhang, Shigang Liu 等 10 位作者

Binary similarity detection is a critical technique that has been applied in many real-world scenarios where source code is not available, e.g., bug search, malware analysis, and code plagiarism detection. Existing works are ineffective in detecting similar binaries in cases where different compiling optimizations, compilers, source code versions, or obfuscation are deployed. We observe that all the cases do not change a binary's key code behaviors although they significantly modify its syntax and structure. With this key observation, we extract a set of key instructions from a binary to capture its key code behaviors. By detecting the similarity between two binaries' key instructions, we can address well the ineffectiveness limitation of existing works. Specifically, we translate each extracted key instruction into a self-defined key expression, generating a key-semantics graph based on the binary's control flow. Each node in the key-semantics graph denotes a key instruction, and the node attribute is the key expression. To quantify the similarity between two given key-semantics graphs, we first serialize each graph into a sequence of key expressions by topological sort. Then, we tokenize and concatenate key expressions to generate token lists. We calculate the locality-sensitive hash value for all token lists and quantify their similarity. %We implement a prototype, called SemDiff, consisting of two modules: graph generation and graph diffing. The first module generates a pair of key-semantics graphs and the second module diffs the graphs. Our evaluation results show that overall, SemDiff outperforms state-of-the-art tools when detecting the similarity of binaries generated from different optimization levels, compilers, and obfuscations. SemDiff is also effective for library version search and finding similar vulnerabilities in firmware.

尚无 AI 解读,展示原文摘要

cs.CR
arXiv ↗PDF ↗