Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2412.14306

Closing the Gap: A User Study on the Real-world Usefulness of AI-powered Vulnerability Detection & Repair in the IDE

Benjamin Steenhoek·Kalpathy Sivaraman·Renata Saldivar Gonzalez·Yevhen Mohylevskyy·Roshanak Zilouchian Moghaddam·Wei Le
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

This paper presents the first empirical study of a vulnerability detection and fix tool with professional software developers on real projects that they own. We implemented DeepVulGuard, an IDE-integrated tool based on state-of-the-art detection and fix models, and show that it has promising performance on benchmarks of historic vulnerability data. DeepVulGuard scans code for vulnerabilities (including identifying the vulnerability type and vulnerable region of code), suggests fixes, provides natural-language explanations for alerts and fixes, leveraging chat interfaces. We recruited 17 professional software developers at Microsoft, observed their usage of the tool on their code, and conducted interviews to assess the tool's usefulness, speed, trust, relevance, and workflow integration. We also gathered detailed qualitative feedback on users' perceptions and their desired features. Study participants scanned a total of 24 projects, 6.9k files, and over 1.7 million lines of source code, and generated 170 alerts and 50 fix suggestions. We find that although state-of-the-art AI-powered detection and fix tools show promise, they are not yet practical for real-world use due to a high rate of false positives and non-applicable fixes. User feedback reveals several actionable pain points, ranging from incomplete context to lack of customization for the user's codebase. Additionally, we explore how AI features, including confidence scores, explanations, and chat interaction, can apply to vulnerability detection and fixing. Based on these insights, we offer practical recommendations for evaluating and deploying AI detection and fix models. Our code and data are available at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.26367139.

Explore related subjects

cs.SEcs.CRcs.LG

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Benjamin Steenhoek, Kalpathy Sivaraman, Renata Saldivar Gonzalez, Yevhen Mohylevskyy, Roshanak Zilouchian Moghaddam, Wei Le. 2025-04-25. Closing the Gap: A User Study on the Real-world Usefulness of AI-powered Vulnerability Detection & Repair in the IDE. https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.14306

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Is Vibe Coding Safe? Benchmarking Vulnerability of Agent-Generated Code in Real-World Tasks

Vibe coding is a new software development paradigm in which human engineers prompt a large language model (LLM) agent to complete complex coding tasks with little supervision. Although vibe coding is increasingly adopted, is the generated code really safe to deploy in production? To investigate this question, we propose SUSVIBES, a benchmark consisting of 186 feature-request software engineering tasks from real-world open-source projects, for which, human programmers committed vulnerable implementations. We evaluate 12 widely used coding agentic settings with frontier models on the benchmark. Disturbingly, all agents perform poorly in terms of software security. Although 57% of the solutions from SWE-Agent with Claude 4 Sonnet are functionally correct, only 11.8% are secure. Further experiments demonstrate that preliminary security strategies, such as augmenting the feature request with vulnerability hints, cannot mitigate these security issues. Our findings raise serious concerns about the widespread adoption of vibe coding, particularly in security-sensitive applications. The code and dataset are available at https://github.com/LeiLiLab/susvibes. The leaderboard is at https://leililab.github.io/susvibes-leaderboard.

cs.SE↗
arXiv2026

Why3-py: A Tool for Formal Verification of Hypothesis Testing and Meta-Analysis in Python

The reproducibility crisis in scientific research has received widespread recognition, thereby increasing the importance of meta-analyses that integrate statistical analyses from multiple studies. However, statistical methods often have ambiguous and implicit underlying assumptions, which can lead to their erroneous applications and interpretations. To address this issue, we propose a formal verification framework for statistical Python programs. Specifically, we present Why3-py, a Python front-end for the Why3 verification platform that transforms Python code into verification-oriented WhyML representations, addressing the challenges arising from Python's dynamic typing and runtime polymorphism. Furthermore, we extend the StatWhy tool to support the verification of meta-analysis methods. These tools enable meta-analysts to identify overlooked assumptions and misuse of analyses, and to verify the correct use of hypothesis testing and meta-analysis methods in Python code.

cs.SE↗
arXiv2026

What is the Difference Between Me and You? Benchmarking the Quality Gap Between Human-Written and AI-Generated Code

AI coding assistants are becoming co-authors of production software, yet their evaluation centers on functional correctness, leaving open whether their code differs from human code in the quality dimensions dominating lifecycle cost. We compare human-written and AI-generated code at scale: 787,562 function pairs across Python, Java, and C, each human function mined from open-source repositories paired with implementations generated from its docstring by three AI assistants (OpenAI GPT models, DeepSeek-Coder, Qwen2.5-Coder). We characterize structural complexity and statistical naturalness, and map static-analysis findings onto Orthogonal Defect Classification for defects and the Common Weakness Enumeration for vulnerabilities, making authors and languages directly comparable. AI-generated code is structurally compressed and stylistically templated: roughly half the size and branching of human code, clustering apart at the style level. Defect profiles differ in kind: human code concentrates issues of mature codebases, AI code repetitive boilerplate; security is language-dependent, with LLMs producing more, and more severe, findings in Python and Java but fewer high-severity memory-safety findings than humans in C. Once size is controlled for, complexity metrics carry little signal, while naturalness separates authors. Finally, we release CQBench, a benchmark of 27,346 issue-prone tasks with baselines and an evaluation pipeline for quality assurance and security testing.

cs.SE↗