Sifting the Noise: A Comparative Study of LLM Agents in Vulnerability False Positive Filtering
Yunpeng Xiong, Ting Zhang
摘要
Static Application Security Testing (SAST) tools are essential for identifying software vulnerabilities, but they often produce a high volume of False Positives (FPs), imposing a substantial manual triage burden on developers. Recent advances in Large Language Model (LLM) agents offer a promising direction by enabling iterative reasoning, tool use, and environment interaction to refine SAST alerts. However, the comparative effectiveness of different LLM-based agent architectures for FP filtering remains poorly understood.
In this paper, we present a comparative study of three state-of-the-art LLM-based agent frameworks, i.e., Aider, OpenHands, and SWE-agent, for vulnerability FP filtering. We evaluate these frameworks using the vulnerabilities from the OWASP Benchmark and real-world open-source Java projects. We further conduct a focused post-cutoff C/C++ study using the strongest configuration to test contamination-free generalization and isolate key agentic capabilities. The experimental results show that LLM-based agents can remove the majority of SAST noise, reducing an initial FP detection rate of over 92% on the OWASP Benchmark to as low as 6.3% in the best configuration. On a real-world Java dataset, the best configuration of LLM-based agents can achieve an FP identification rate of up to 93.3% involving CodeQL alerts. However, the benefits of agents are strongly backbone-and CWE-dependent: agentic frameworks significantly outperform vanilla prompting for stronger models such as Claude Sonnet 4 and GPT-5, but yield limited or inconsistent gains for weaker backbones. On the post-cutoff OSS-Fuzz dataset, SWE-agent with Claude Sonnet 4 identifies 95.5% of FPs while maintaining 95.5% precision, compared with a 36.4% FP identification rate for vanilla prompting. Moreover, aggressive FP reduction can come at the cost of suppressing true vulnerabilities, highlighting important trade-offs. Finally, we observe large disparities in computational cost across agent frameworks.
Overall, our study demonstrates that LLM-based agents are a powerful but non-uniform solution for SAST FP filtering, and that their practical deployment requires careful consideration of agent design, backbone model choice, vulnerability category, and operational cost.
CCS Concepts: • Security and privacy → Software and application security.
问问这篇 Paper
智能体会读完全文。
Lune 把这篇 Paper 索引到了每一个公式,引用它的顶会 Paper 也一样。你提问,回答直接引用原文。
它引用的顶会 Paper18
- SWE-agent: Agent-Computer Interfaces Enable Automated Software EngineeringJohn Yang, Carlos E. Jimenez, Alexander Wettig, Kilian Lieret 等NeurIPS 2024 · 被引用 2,059 次
- A Large-Scale Empirical Study of Security PatchesFrank Li, Vern PaxsonCCS 2017 · 被引用 273 次
- RepairAgent: An Autonomous, LLM-Based Agent for Program RepairIslem Bouzenia, Premkumar T. Devanbu, Michael PradelICSE 2025 · 被引用 54 次
- Comparison and Evaluation on Static Application Security Testing (SAST) Tools for JavaKaixuan Li, Sen Chen, Lingling Fan, Ruitao Feng 等FSE 2023 · 被引用 43 次
- Detecting False Alarms from Automatic Static Analysis Tools: How Far are We?Hong Jin Kang, Khai Loong Aw, David LoICSE 2022 · 被引用 42 次
相关 Paper
- SEC-bench: Automated Benchmarking of LLM Agents on Real-World Software Security TasksHwiwon Lee, Ziqi Zhang, Hanxiao Lu, Lingming ZhangNeurIPS 2025 · 被引用 86 次
- Make Agent Defeat Agent: Automatic Detection of Taint-Style Vulnerabilities in LLM-based AgentsFengyu Liu, Yuan Zhang, Jiaqi Luo, Jiarun Dai 等USENIX Security 2025
- SecureVibeBench: Benchmarking Secure Vibe Coding of AI Agents via Reconstructing Vulnerability-Introducing ScenariosJunkai Chen, Huihui Huang, Yunbo Lyu, Junwen An 等ACL 2026 · 被引用 5 次
- RefAgent: A Multi-agent LLM-based Framework for Automatic Software RefactoringKhouloud Oueslati, Maxime Lamothe, Foutse KhomhICSE 2026 · 被引用 1 次
- When "Correct" Is Not Safe: Can We Trust Functionally Correct Patches Generated by Code Agents?Yibo Peng, James Song, Lei Li, Xinyu Yang 等ACL 2026 · 被引用 2 次
