Chasing Shadows: Pitfalls in LLM Security Research
Jonathan Evertz, Niklas Risse, Nicolai Neuer, Andreas Müller, Philipp Normann, Gaetano Sapia, Srishti Gupta, David Pape, Soumya Shaw, Devansh Srivastav, Christian Wressnegger, Erwin Quiring
Abstract
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly prevalent in security research. Their unique characteristics, however, introduce challenges that undermine established paradigms of reproducibility, rigor, and evaluation. Prior work has identified common pitfalls in traditional machine learning research, but these studies predate the advent of LLMs. In this paper, we identify nine common pitfalls that have become (more) relevant with the emergence of LLMs and that can compromise the validity of research involving them. These pitfalls span the entire computation process, from data collection, pre-training, and fine-tuning to prompting and evaluation. We assess the prevalence of these pitfalls across all 72 peer-reviewed papers published at leading Security and Software Engineering venues between 2023 and 2024. We find that every paper contains at least one pitfall, and each pitfall appears in multiple papers. Yet only 15.7% of the present pitfalls were explicitly discussed, suggesting that the majority remain unrecognized. To understand their practical impact, we conduct four empirical case studies showing how individual pitfalls can mislead evaluation, inflate performance, or impair reproducibility. Based on our findings, we offer actionable guidelines to support the community in future work.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext 5ec7f224-6510-42c7-ba12-898cee272099Cited by top-tier papers1
Ask how each one uses itBuilds on88
- Language Models are Few-Shot LearnersTom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah et al.NeurIPS 2020 · 64,255 citations
- Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackLong Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida et al.NeurIPS 2022 · 24,707 citations
- GraphCodeBERT: Pre-training Code Representations with Data FlowDaya Guo, Shuo Ren, Shuai Lu, Zhangyin Feng et al.ICLR 2021 · 1,644 citations
- CodeT5: Identifier-aware Unified Pre-trained Encoder-Decoder Models for Code Understanding and GenerationYue Wang, Weishi Wang, Shafiq R. Joty, Steven C. H. HoiEMNLP 2021 · 1,224 citations
- Quantifying Language Models' Sensitivity to Spurious Features in Prompt Design or: How I learned to start worrying about prompt formattingMelanie Sclar, Yejin Choi, Yulia Tsvetkov, Alane SuhrICLR 2024 · 682 citations
Related papers
- Reflections on the Reproducibility of Commercial LLM Performance in Empirical Software Engineering StudiesFlorian Angermeir, Maximilian Amougou, Mark Kreitz, Andreas Bauer et al.ICSE 2026 · 1 citation
- Dos and Don'ts of Machine Learning in Computer SecurityDaniel Arp, Erwin Quiring, Feargus Pendlebury, Alexander Warnecke et al.USENIX Security 2022
- SEC-bench: Automated Benchmarking of LLM Agents on Real-World Software Security TasksHwiwon Lee, Ziqi Zhang, Hanxiao Lu, Lingming ZhangNeurIPS 2025 · 86 citations
- Large Language Models for Code Analysis: Do LLMs Really Do Their Job?Chongzhou Fang, Ning Miao, Shaurya Srivastav, Jialin Liu et al.USENIX Security 2024 · 110 citations
- Beyond Static Pattern Matching? Rethinking Automatic Cryptographic API Misuse Detection in the Era of LLMsYifan Xia, Zichen Xie, Peiyu Liu, Kangjie Lu et al.ISSTA 2025 · 2 citations
