The authors of arXiv:2610.10150 claim that LLM vulnerability patching benchmark scores are highly sensitive to evaluation design choices across agent-level, framework-level, and dataset-level factors, and that models achieve high proof-of-concept pass rates but low developer-test pass rates, indicating they suppress symptoms without producing upstream-quality fixes; if validated, this would reshape how vulnerability patching benchmarks are constructed and interpreted.

state: seedheat: mediumuncertainty: mediumconvergesscott: highagent-evaluation benchmark-methodology vulnerability-patchingDang K LeWenxuan ShiXinyu Xing

What is this?

arXiv:2610.10150 "On the Reliability of LLM-Based Vulnerability Patching Benchmarks" (Le, Shi, Xing) is a systematic study showing that reported LLM patching performance is highly sensitive to evaluation design choices across agent-level (prompting, tool availability), framework-level (harness, test execution), and dataset-level (bug selection, test suite composition) factors. The authors curated 112 real bugs from 84 projects and surveyed 13 existing benchmarks, finding models achieve high proof-of-concept pass rates but low developer-test pass rates — indicating models suppress symptoms without producing upstream-quality fixes. They argue the benchmarking pipeline itself is a first-class research artifact requiring principled design.

Why it matters to Scott

The paper provides systematic empirical validation (112 bugs, 84 projects, 13 benchmarks) for multiple load-bearing positions in Scott's canon: the model-plus-harness benchmark unit (harness design as first-order driver), evaluation-driven development (evaluation suites as binding gates), the pilot-to-production gap (PoC pass rates vs developer-test pass rates), and the evaluation pipeline as a first-class research artifact (Challenger Never Arbiter, Replay-Driven Design Evolution). The vulnerability patching focus directly engages Scott's security agent architectures (SiloOS, Separation of Powers, Security Reviewer Method). This is not merely illustrative — it supplies dated receipts for positions Scott already argues and builds around, and would strengthen his framework arguments with independent evidence.

ip:concept.model-plus-harness-benchmark-unitip:concept.evaluation-driven-developmentip:concept.pilot-to-production-gapip:framework.challenger-never-arbiterip:concept.verification-loopsip:source.security-reviewer-method-ebookip:framework.siloosip:framework.replay-driven-design-evolutionip:concept.visible-reasoningip:framework.nightly-ai-decision-buildsradar:frontierharness-17x-cost-variationradar:concept.agent-evaluationradar:concept.benchmark-methodologyradar:concept.agent-harnessesradar:aisle-six-curl-cvesradar:patchwing-verifiable-cve-fixesradar:visa-agentic-sast-harness-validationradar:specific-real-swe-releaseradar:ship-harness-benchradar:swe-bench-pro-harness-cost-parityradar:frontier-benchmark-gaps-statistical-rigorradar:cleaned-benchmarks-frontier-rankingsradar:concept.benchmark-validityradar:concept.coding-agent-evaluationradar:concept.security-agents

queries asked of Scott's wikis

agent evaluation harness design and benchmark methodology
coding agent test execution frameworks and reliability
benchmark sensitivity to evaluation design choices
proof-of-concept vs developer test gap in agent evaluation
vulnerability patching agent architectures and evaluation
evaluation pipeline as first-class research artifact

Measured heat

now 0 pts/hpeak 2 pts/hcomments 0/hpeers p40momentum: steady2 platformsage 123h

points/hour across evidence · reading as of 2026-10-12 02:59:37.977291+11:00 · deterministic, not a model opinion

How the heat travelled

10-06 13:00	⭐ origin echo-reconstructed	LLM vulnerability patching benchmarks substantially distort reported performance due to pitfalls across agent-level (prompting, tool availab Dang K Le, Wenxuan Shi, Xinyu Xing on paper (echo) · attributed from reddit.post.1x34dll	—
10-11 10:02	first on r/OpenAI · published · +117.0h	112 bugs, 84 projects: LLMs pass the proof-of-concept but fail the developer's own tests - and the benchmark score swings on evaluation design alone lulzxdxdxd	—
10-11 10:02	amplified on r/OpenAI 👑	reddit.post.1x34dll lulzxdxdxd	peak 1 · 0 comments · 109% of case engagement
10-11 10:32	our radar first saw it · +117.5h	discovery anchor: reddit.post.1x34dll	—

Evidence (2) — ⭐ canonical anchor

source	object	author	score	comments
🟠 reddit	112 bugs, 84 projects: LLMs pass the proof-of-concept but fail the developer's own tests - and the benchmark score swings on evaluation design alone OpenAI Retrieved article excerpt Open article · Retrieved 2026-10-11T10:35:42.345759+00:00 # Computer Science > Cryptography and Security arXiv:2610.10150 (cs) [Submitted on 7 Oct 2026] # Title:On the Reliability of LLM-Based Vulnerability Patching Benchmarks Authors:[Dang K Le](https://arxiv.org/search/cs?searchtype=author&query=Le,+D+K), [Wenxuan Shi](https://arxiv.org/search/cs?searchtype=author&query=Shi,+W), [Xinyu Xing](https://arxiv.org/search/cs?searchtype=author&query=Xing,+X) View a PDF of the paper titled On the Reliability of LLM-Based Vulnerability Patching Benchmarks, by Dang K Le and 1 other authors [View PDF](https://arxiv.org/pdf/2610.10150) [HTML (experimental)](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.10150v1) > Abstract:Large language models (LLMs) have shown strong potential for automated vulnerability patching, but current benchmarks can substantially distort reported performance. Drawing on extensive experience developing, running, and stress-testing such frameworks, we identify under-examined pitfalls across three dimensions: (1) agent-level factors, where prompting, tool availability, and detailed instructions can raise success rates without improving developer-aligned patch quality; (2) framework-level factors, where permission errors, infrastructure bugs, and timeout handling can silently suppress or inflate performance; and (3) dataset-level factors, where bug reports and single proof-of-concept (PoC) tests fail to capture whether patches address root causes or follow developer intent. We curate 112 historical bugs from 84 open-source C/C++, Go, and Rust projects, each with PoC tests, regression tests, and additional developer tests that assess alignment with the original developers' design principles. Through controlled experiments and case studies, we show that LLMs can achieve high PoC passing rates under ideal conditions, yet benchmark execution choices can materially change measured success. More importantly, developer-test passing rates remain low and improve only marginally with newer models, suggesting that models increasingly suppress symptoms without consistently producing upstream-quality fixes. These results show that benchmark scores are highly sensitive to evaluation design, and we provide practical guidelines for more rigorous, reliable, and reproducible evaluation. \| \| \| \| --- \| --- \| \| Subjects: \| Cryptography and Security (cs.CR); Software Engineering (cs.SE) \| \| Cite as: \| [arXiv:2610.10150](https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.10150) [cs.CR] \| \| \| (or [arXiv:2610.10150v1](https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.10150v1) [cs.CR] for this version) \| \| \| <https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.10150> Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration) \| ## Submission history From: Wenxuan Shi [[view email](https://arxiv.org/show-email/84c58f83/2610.10150)] [v1] Wed, 7 Oct 2026 14:26:57 UTC (50 KB) Full-text links: ## Access Paper: View a PDF of the paper titled On the Reliability of LLM-Based Vulnerability Patching Benchmarks, by Dang K Le and 1 other authors - [View PDF](https://arxiv.org/pdf/2610.10150) - [HTML (experimental)](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.10150v1) - [TeX Source](https://arxiv.org/src/2610.10150) [view license](http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/ "Rights to this article") ### Additional Features - [Audio Summary](https://arxiv.org/audio/2610.10150) ### Current browse context: cs.CR [< prev](https://arxiv.org/prevnext?id=2610.10150&function=prev&context=cs.CR "previous in cs.CR (accesskey p)") \| [next >](https://arxiv.org/prevnext?id=2610.10150&function=next&context=cs.CR "next in cs.CR (accesskey n)") [new](https://arxiv.org/list/cs.CR/new) \| [recent](https://arxiv.org/list/cs.CR/recent) \| [2026-10](https://arxiv.org/list/cs.CR/2026-10) Change to browse by: [cs](https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.10150?context=cs) [cs.SE](https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.10150?context=cs.SE) ### References & Citations - [NASA ADS](https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/arXiv:2610.10150) - [Google Scholar](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?arxiv_id=2610.10150) - [Semantic Scholar](https://api.semanticscholar.org/arXiv:2610.10150) export BibTeX citation Loading... ## BibTeX formatted citation × loading... Data provided by: ### Bookmark [BibSonomy](http://www.bibsonomy.org/BibtexHandler?requTask=upload&url=https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.10150&description=On the Reliability of LLM-Based Vulnerability Patching Benchmarks "Bookmark on BibSonomy") [Reddit](https://reddit.com/submit?url=https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.10150&title=On the Reliability of LLM-Based Vulnerability Patching Benchmarks "Bookmark on Reddit") Bibliographic Tools # Bibliographic and Citation Tools Bibliographic Explorer Toggle Bibliographic Explorer ([What is the Explorer?](https://info.arxiv.org/labs/showcase.html#arxiv-bibliographic-explorer)) Connected Papers Toggle Connected Papers ([What is Connected Papers?](https://www.connectedpapers.com/about)) Litmaps Toggle Litmaps ([What is Litmaps?](https://www.litmaps.co/)) scite.ai Toggle scite Smart Citations ([What are Smart Citations?](https://www.scite.ai/)) Code, Data, Media # Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article alphaXiv Toggle alphaXiv ([What is alphaXiv?](https://alphaxiv.org/)) Links to Code Toggle CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers ([What is CatalyzeX?](https://www.catalyzex.com)) DagsHub Toggle DagsHub ([What is DagsHub?](https://dagshub.com/)) GotitPub Toggle Gotit.pub ([What is GotitPub?](http://gotit.pub/faq)) Huggingface Toggle Hugging Face ([What is Huggingface?](https://huggingface.co/huggingface)) ScienceCast Toggle ScienceCast ([What is ScienceCast?](https://sciencecast.org/welcome)) Demos # Demos Replicate Toggle Replicate ([What is Replicate?](https://replicate.com/docs/arxiv/about)) Spaces Toggle Hugging Face Spaces ([What is Spaces?](https://huggingface.co/docs/hub/spaces)) Spaces Toggle TXYZ.AI ([What is TXYZ.AI?](https://txyz.ai)) Related Papers # Recommenders and Search Tools Link to Influence Flower Influence Flower ([What are Influence Flowers?](https://influencemap.cmlab.dev/)) Core recommender toggle CORE Recommender ([What is CORE?](https://core.ac.uk/services/recommender)) - Author - Venue - Institution - Topic About arXivLabs # arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website. Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them. Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? [Learn more about arXivLabs](https://info.arxiv.org/labs/index.html). [Which authors of this paper are endorsers?](https://arxiv.org/auth/show-endorsers/2610.10150) \| Disable MathJax ([What is MathJax?](https://info.arxiv.org/help/mathjax.html))	lulzxdxdxd	1	0
🟧 echo.paper ⭐	LLM vulnerability patching benchmarks substantially distort reported performance due to pitfalls across agent-level (prompting, tool availab	Dang K Le, Wenxuan Shi, Xinyu Xing	—	—

source

object

author

score

comments

🟠 reddit

112 bugs, 84 projects: LLMs pass the proof-of-concept but fail the developer's own tests - and the benchmark score swings on evaluation design alone

OpenAI

Retrieved article excerpt

Open article · Retrieved 2026-10-11T10:35:42.345759+00:00

# Computer Science > Cryptography and Security

**arXiv:2610.10150** (cs)

[Submitted on 7 Oct 2026]

# Title:On the Reliability of LLM-Based Vulnerability Patching Benchmarks

Authors:[Dang K Le](https://arxiv.org/search/cs?searchtype=author&query=Le,+D+K), [Wenxuan Shi](https://arxiv.org/search/cs?searchtype=author&query=Shi,+W), [Xinyu Xing](https://arxiv.org/search/cs?searchtype=author&query=Xing,+X)

View a PDF of the paper titled On the Reliability of LLM-Based Vulnerability Patching Benchmarks, by Dang K Le and 1 other authors

[View PDF](https://arxiv.org/pdf/2610.10150)
[HTML (experimental)](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.10150v1)
> Abstract:Large language models (LLMs) have shown strong potential for automated vulnerability patching, but current benchmarks can substantially distort reported performance. Drawing on extensive experience developing, running, and stress-testing such frameworks, we identify under-examined pitfalls across three dimensions: (1) agent-level factors, where prompting, tool availability, and detailed instructions can raise success rates without improving developer-aligned patch quality; (2) framework-level factors, where permission errors, infrastructure bugs, and timeout handling can silently suppress or inflate performance; and (3) dataset-level factors, where bug reports and single proof-of-concept (PoC) tests fail to capture whether patches address root causes or follow developer intent. We curate 112 historical bugs from 84 open-source C/C++, Go, and Rust projects, each with PoC tests, regression tests, and additional developer tests that assess alignment with the original developers' design principles. Through controlled experiments and case studies, we show that LLMs can achieve high PoC passing rates under ideal conditions, yet benchmark execution choices can materially change measured success. More importantly, developer-test passing rates remain low and improve only marginally with newer models, suggesting that models increasingly suppress symptoms without consistently producing upstream-quality fixes. These results show that benchmark scores are highly sensitive to evaluation design, and we provide practical guidelines for more rigorous, reliable, and reproducible evaluation.

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| Subjects: | Cryptography and Security (cs.CR); Software Engineering (cs.SE) |
| Cite as: | [arXiv:2610.10150](https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.10150) [cs.CR] |
|  | (or  [arXiv:2610.10150v1](https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.10150v1) [cs.CR] for this version) |
|  | <https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.10150> Focus to learn more  arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration) |

## Submission history

From: Wenxuan Shi [[view email](https://arxiv.org/show-email/84c58f83/2610.10150)]   
 **[v1]**
Wed, 7 Oct 2026 14:26:57 UTC (50 KB)

Full-text links:

## Access Paper:

View a PDF of the paper titled On the Reliability of LLM-Based Vulnerability Patching Benchmarks, by Dang K Le and 1 other authors

- [View PDF](https://arxiv.org/pdf/2610.10150)
- [HTML (experimental)](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.10150v1)
- [TeX Source](https://arxiv.org/src/2610.10150)

[view license](http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/ "Rights to this article")

### Additional Features

- [Audio Summary](https://arxiv.org/audio/2610.10150)

### Current browse context:

cs.CR

[< prev](https://arxiv.org/prevnext?id=2610.10150&function=prev&context=cs.CR "previous in cs.CR (accesskey p)")
  |   
[next >](https://arxiv.org/prevnext?id=2610.10150&function=next&context=cs.CR "next in cs.CR (accesskey n)")

[new](https://arxiv.org/list/cs.CR/new)
 | 
[recent](https://arxiv.org/list/cs.CR/recent)
 | [2026-10](https://arxiv.org/list/cs.CR/2026-10)

Change to browse by:

[cs](https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.10150?context=cs)  
[cs.SE](https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.10150?context=cs.SE)

### References & Citations

- [NASA ADS](https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/arXiv:2610.10150)
- [Google Scholar](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?arxiv_id=2610.10150)
- [Semantic Scholar](https://api.semanticscholar.org/arXiv:2610.10150)

export BibTeX citation
Loading...

## BibTeX formatted citation

×

loading...

Data provided by:

### Bookmark

[BibSonomy](http://www.bibsonomy.org/BibtexHandler?requTask=upload&url=https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.10150&description=On the Reliability of LLM-Based Vulnerability Patching Benchmarks "Bookmark on BibSonomy")
[Reddit](https://reddit.com/submit?url=https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.10150&title=On the Reliability of LLM-Based Vulnerability Patching Benchmarks "Bookmark on Reddit")



Bibliographic Tools

# Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Bibliographic Explorer Toggle

Bibliographic Explorer *([What is the Explorer?](https://info.arxiv.org/labs/showcase.html#arxiv-bibliographic-explorer))*

Connected Papers Toggle

Connected Papers *([What is Connected Papers?](https://www.connectedpapers.com/about))*

Litmaps Toggle

Litmaps *([What is Litmaps?](https://www.litmaps.co/))*

scite.ai Toggle

scite Smart Citations *([What are Smart Citations?](https://www.scite.ai/))*

Code, Data, Media

# Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article

alphaXiv Toggle

alphaXiv *([What is alphaXiv?](https://alphaxiv.org/))*

Links to Code Toggle

CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers *([What is CatalyzeX?](https://www.catalyzex.com))*

DagsHub Toggle

DagsHub *([What is DagsHub?](https://dagshub.com/))*

GotitPub Toggle

Gotit.pub *([What is GotitPub?](http://gotit.pub/faq))*

Huggingface Toggle

Hugging Face *([What is Huggingface?](https://huggingface.co/huggingface))*

ScienceCast Toggle

ScienceCast *([What is ScienceCast?](https://sciencecast.org/welcome))*

Demos

# Demos

Replicate Toggle

Replicate *([What is Replicate?](https://replicate.com/docs/arxiv/about))*

Spaces Toggle

Hugging Face Spaces *([What is Spaces?](https://huggingface.co/docs/hub/spaces))*

Spaces Toggle

TXYZ.AI *([What is TXYZ.AI?](https://txyz.ai))*

Related Papers

# Recommenders and Search Tools

Link to Influence Flower

Influence Flower *([What are Influence Flowers?](https://influencemap.cmlab.dev/))*

Core recommender toggle

CORE Recommender *([What is CORE?](https://core.ac.uk/services/recommender))*

- Author
- Venue
- Institution
- Topic


About arXivLabs

# arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? [**Learn more about arXivLabs**](https://info.arxiv.org/labs/index.html).

[Which authors of this paper are endorsers?](https://arxiv.org/auth/show-endorsers/2610.10150) |
Disable MathJax ([What is MathJax?](https://info.arxiv.org/help/mathjax.html))

lulzxdxdxd

🟧 echo.paper ⭐

LLM vulnerability patching benchmarks substantially distort reported performance due to pitfalls across agent-level (prompting, tool availab

Dang K Le, Wenxuan Shi, Xinyu Xing

—

Interpretation history

2026-10-11T10:55:38Z
grounded: converges/high — The paper provides systematic empirical validation (112 bugs, 84 projects, 13 benchmarks) for multiple load-bearing positions in Scott's canon: the model-plus-h
2026-10-11T10:43:00Z
case created — Substantive arXiv paper identifying systematic pitfalls in LLM vulnerability patching benchmarks with a curated dataset of 112 bugs from 84 projects.

Decision trace

10-11 22:12attention_communicatedDang et al. (arXiv:2610.10150) show benchmark scores for LLM vulnerability patching swing wildly based on agent-level (prompting, tools), framework-level (permission errors, infra bugs), and dataset-l
10-11 22:12attention_routeFresh arXiv paper (submitted Oct 7) with systematic empirical validation (112 bugs, 84 projects, 13 benchmarks) that directly corroborates multiple load-bearing positions in Scott's canon. No pri
10-11 22:06attention_candidatecreate
10-11 21:55groundThe paper provides systematic empirical validation (112 bugs, 84 projects, 13 benchmarks) for multiple load-bearing positions in Scott's canon: the model-plus-harness benchmark unit (harness desi
10-11 21:43createSubstantive arXiv paper identifying systematic pitfalls in LLM vulnerability patching benchmarks with a curated dataset of 112 bugs from 84 projects.