Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2512.06248

CFCEval: Evaluating Security Aspects in Code Generated by Large Language Models

Abstract

Code-focused Large Language Models (LLMs), such as CodeX and Star-Coder, have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in enhancing developer productivity through context-aware code generation. However, evaluating the quality and security of LLM-generated code remains a significant challenge. Existing evaluation protocols for Code LLMs lack both methodological rigor and comprehensive scope. A key limitation is dataset bias, which arises from unintentional overlap between training and testing data. Furthermore, while CodeBLEU, a BLEU-based metric, is widely used to assess code similarity, it suffers from critical shortcomings, including imprecise tokenization, structural limitations, and low reference diversity. To address these challenges, we introduce CFCEval, a novel framework for evaluating the quality and security of code generated by LLMs. CFCEval mitigates dataset bias by creating a new benchmark, MLVBench, and incorporates ELRM, a new metric designed to assess the relevance between reference code and generated code. CFCEval evaluates generated code across four dimensions: programming quality, vulnerability-fixing capability, post-transformation fixing capability, and relevance. Our experiments show that CFCEval not only captures both quality and security aspects of generated code more effectively but also that its ELRM aligns more closely with human judgments than CodeBLEU, thus paving the way for future advancements in Code LLMs evaluation.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Cheng Cheng, Jinqiu Yang. 2025-12-06. CFCEval: Evaluating Security Aspects in Code Generated by Large Language Models. https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.06248

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

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

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

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