Automating the Correctness Assessment of AI-generated Code for Security Contexts
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Evaluating the correctness of code generated by AI is a challenging open problem. In this paper, we propose a fully automated method, named ACCA, to evaluate the correctness of AI-generated code for security purposes. The method uses symbolic execution to assess whether the AI-generated code behaves as a reference implementation. We use ACCA to assess four state-of-the-art models trained to generate security-oriented assembly code and compare the results of the evaluation with different baseline solutions, including output similarity metrics, widely used in the field, and the well-known ChatGPT, the AI-powered language model developed by OpenAI. Our experiments show that our method outperforms the baseline solutions and assesses the correctness of the AI-generated code similar to the human-based evaluation, which is considered the ground truth for the assessment in the field. Moreover, ACCA has a very strong correlation with the human evaluation (Pearson's correlation coefficient r=0.84 on average). Finally, since it is a fully automated solution that does not require any human intervention, the proposed method performs the assessment of every code snippet in ~0.17s on average, which is definitely lower than the average time required by human analysts to manually inspect the code, based on our experience.
Key facts. Cited by 6 papers in the map (data through 13 Oct 2026). Builds on 31 of its 78 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 28 Oct 2023.
Builds on
31 of 78 references.
References · 31
- 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 60,106
- 2019Exploring the Limits of Transfer Learning with a Unified Text-to-Text Transformercited by 14,549
- 2021Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Codecited by 8,205
- 2014Neural Machine Translation by Jointly Learning to Align and Translatecited by 4,539
- 2018A Call for Clarity in Reporting BLEU Scorescited by 1,793
- 2020CodeBERT: A Pre-Trained Model for Programming and Natural Languagescited by 1,304
- 2020CodeBLEU: a Method for Automatic Evaluation of Code Synthesiscited by 475
- 2021Asleep at the Keyboard? Assessing the Security of GitHub Copilot's Code Contributionscited by 427
- 2021Unified Pre-training for Program Understanding and Generationcited by 366
- 2023CodeT5+: Open Code Large Language Models for Code Understanding and Generationcited by 333
- 2019SPoC: Search-based Pseudocode to Codecited by 176
- 2021Retrieval Augmented Code Generation and Summarizationcited by 148
19 more
- 2023From ChatGPT to ThreatGPT: Impact of Generative AI in Cybersecurity and Privacycited by 143
- 2022Out of the BLEU: how should we assess quality of the Code Generation models?cited by 65
- 2023LLMSecEval: A Dataset of Natural Language Prompts for Security Evaluationscited by 61
- 2021TOGA: A Neural Method for Test Oracle Generationcited by 57
- 2019Does BLEU Score Work for Code Migration?cited by 49
- 2021Applying CodeBERT for Automated Program Repair of Java Simple Bugscited by 44
- 2016A Survey of Symbolic Execution Techniquescited by 36
- 2021Translation Quality Assessment: A Brief Survey on Manual and Automatic Methodscited by 23
- 2018AVATAR : Fixing Semantic Bugs with Fix Patterns of Static Analysis Violationscited by 22
- 2021Shellcode_IA32: A Dataset for Automatic Shellcode Generationcited by 16
- 2018XNMT: The eXtensible Neural Machine Translation Toolkitcited by 14
- 2022Cross-Language Binary-Source Code Matching with Intermediate Representationscited by 13
- 2021EVIL: Exploiting Software via Natural Languagecited by 12
- 2022Who Evaluates the Evaluators? On Automatic Metrics for Assessing AI-based Offensive Code Generatorscited by 11
- 2023A Comparative Study of Code Generation using ChatGPT 3.5 across 10 Programming Languagescited by 11
- 2021An Empirical Study of Automated Unit Test Generation for Pythoncited by 10
- 2023Neural-Based Test Oracle Generation: A Large-scale Evaluation and Lessons Learnedcited by 9
- 2022DualSC: Automatic Generation and Summarization of Shellcode via Transformer and Dual Learningcited by 8
- 2022Contrastive Learning for Multi-Modal Automatic Code Reviewcited by 2
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2024: 2; 2025: 3; 2026: 1.
6 papers.
- 2024Enhancing AI-based Generation of Software Exploits with Contextual Informationcited by 3
- 2025Human-In-The-Loop Software Development Agents: Challenges and Future Directionscited by 3
- 2025Is Your Prompt Poisoning Code? Defect Induction Rates and Security Mitigation Strategiescited by 3
- 2024Tadashi: Enabling AI-Based Automated Code Generation With Guaranteed Correctnesscited by 1
- 2026Perceptual Self-Reflection in Agentic Physics Simulation Code Generationcited by 1
- 2025ReCatcher: Towards LLMs Regression Testing for Code Generationcited by 0
- 2026Perceptual Self-Reflection in Agentic Physics Simulation Code Generation12 Feb 2026
- 2025Is Your Prompt Poisoning Code? Defect Induction Rates and Security Mitigation Strategies27 Oct 2025
- 2025ReCatcher: Towards LLMs Regression Testing for Code Generation25 Jul 2025
- 2025Human-In-The-Loop Software Development Agents: Challenges and Future Directions25 Apr 2025
- 2024Tadashi: Enabling AI-Based Automated Code Generation With Guaranteed Correctness4 Oct 2024
- 2024Enhancing AI-based Generation of Software Exploits with Contextual Information5 Aug 2024