Model Releases
Probing the Prefill: Detecting Code Vulnerabilities via Latent Activations
arXiv:2608.16970v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: LLM-based code generation is now embedded in mission-critical pipelines, but defenses against vulnerable output remain post-hoc -- static analyzers, f
arXiv:2608.16970v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: LLM-based code generation is now embedded in mission-critical pipelines, but defenses against vulnerable output remain post-hoc -- static analyzers, fine-tuned classifiers, or an LLM judge that screen completed code, ignoring the generating model's own internal state. We test a narrower, directly measurable question: when an LLM reads a piece of C/C++ code as context, do its hidden activations already carry a signal about that code's vulnerability status? We extract last prefill token activations from four LLMs (Granite-4.1-8B, Qwen3.5-9B, Qwen3.6-27B, Gemma-4-12B) across three model families and train MLP probes on these activations. We evaluate them on four function-level C/C++ benchmarks (Devign, Big-Vul, Draper VDISC, PrimeVul). Our probes achieve 41.7% average F1 using 13.4--16.0M-parameter probes -- under 0.2% of base-model size. On Devign, the best probe (Qwen3.5-9B, 68.8% F1) matches the published fine-tuned-classifier SOTA (67.9%) despite reading only a frozen, general-purpose LLM's activations; on the harder, more imbalanced benchmarks (Big-Vul, Draper VDISC, PrimeVul) probes trail SOTA substantially. This is early evidence that a coding LLM's own representation of arbitrary code is informative about that code's vulnerability status, motivating further work toward lightweight, model-native vulnerability screening.
Related
- AnyPoC: Universal Proof-of-Concept Test Generation for Scalable LLM-Based Bug Detection
- Defense Against LLM Backdoors using Critical Neuron Isolation Pruning
- Fast and Lightweight Backdoor Detection via Head Random Probing
- Defective Task Descriptions in LLM-Based Code Generation: Detection and Analysis
Source: arXiv cs.AI | 2026-08-19