跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail
← 研踪 PaperTrail

arXiv:2604.07755 · v3

An Empirical Analysis of Static Analysis Methods for Detection and Mitigation of Code Library Hallucinations

首次提交 2026-04-09 11:21
版本更新 2026-11-06 09:28
雷达观测 2026-11-09 10:16
arXiv ↗PDF ↗

摘要

Despite extensive research, Large Language Models continue to hallucinate when generating code, particularly when using libraries. On NL-to-code benchmarks that require library use, we find that LLMs generate code that uses non-existent library features in 8.1-40% of responses. One intuitive approach for detection and mitigation of hallucinations is static analysis. In this paper, we analyse the potential of static analysis tools, both in terms of what they can solve and what they cannot. We find that static analysis tools can detect 16-70% of all errors, and 14-85% of library hallucinations, with performance varying by LLM and dataset. Through manual analysis, we identify cases a static method could not plausibly catch, which gives an upper bound on their potential from 48.5% to 77%. Overall, we show that static analysis methods are cheap method for addressing some forms of hallucination, and we quantify how far short of solving the problem they will always be.

作者备注:Accepted for publication in Transactions on Machine Learning Research (TMLR)

AI 论文解读

基于摘要 · 非全文审阅

此版本尚未生成 AI 解读。解读由后台任务生成并按论文版本保存,登录后共享已有结果。

版本差异

目前只观测到一个版本,无法比较变化。之后收录新版本时,会在这里对照标题、作者、分类和摘要。

观测到的版本

相邻记录可能跳过中间版本;首次发现 v2 及以上也会标为版本更新。

v3 · 2026-11-06 09:28 · 最新观测版本

An Empirical Analysis of Static Analysis Methods for Detection and Mitigation of Code Library Hallucinations

Despite extensive research, Large Language Models continue to hallucinate when generating code, particularly when using libraries. On NL-to-code benchmarks that require library use, we find that LLMs generate code that uses non-existent library features in 8.1-40% of responses. One intuitive approach for detection and mitigation of hallucinations is static analysis. In this paper, we analyse the potential of static analysis tools, both in terms of what they can solve and what they cannot. We find that static analysis tools can detect 16-70% of all errors, and 14-85% of library hallucinations, with performance varying by LLM and dataset. Through manual analysis, we identify cases a static method could not plausibly catch, which gives an upper bound on their potential from 48.5% to 77%. Overall, we show that static analysis methods are cheap method for addressing some forms of hallucination, and we quantify how far short of solving the problem they will always be.

查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗