On the Effectiveness of Instruction-Tuning Local LLMs for Identifying Software Vulnerabilities
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Large Language Models (LLMs) show significant promise in automating software vulnerability analysis, a critical task given the impact of security failure of modern software systems. However, current approaches in using LLMs to automate vulnerability analysis mostly rely on using online API-based LLM services, requiring the user to disclose the source code in development. Moreover, they predominantly frame the task as a binary classification(vulnerable or not vulnerable), limiting potential practical utility. This paper addresses these limitations by reformulating the problem as Software Vulnerability Identification (SVI), where LLMs are asked to output the type of weakness in Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE) IDs rather than simply indicating the presence or absence of a vulnerability. We also tackle the reliance on large, API-based LLMs by demonstrating that instruction-tuning smaller, locally deployable LLMs can achieve superior identification performance. In our analysis, instruct-tuning a local LLM showed better overall performance and cost trade-off than online API-based LLMs. Our findings indicate that instruct-tuned local models represent a more effective, secure, and practical approach for leveraging LLMs in real-world vulnerability management workflows.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 20 of its 42 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 23 Dec 2025.
Builds on
20 of 42 references.
References · 20
- 2023GPT-4 Technical Reportcited by 18,396
- 2019Exploring the Limits of Transfer Learning with a Unified Text-to-Text Transformercited by 14,599
- 2021Finetuned Language Models Are Zero-Shot Learnerscited by 3,780
- 2020CodeBERT: A Pre-Trained Model for Programming and Natural Languagescited by 1,310
- 2021CodeT5: Identifier-aware Unified Pre-trained Encoder-Decoder Models for Code Understanding and Generationcited by 906
- 2021Efficient Large-Scale Language Model Training on GPU Clusters Using Megatron-LMcited by 632
- 2021PTR: Prompt Tuning with Rules for Text Classificationcited by 238
- 2023Large Language Models for Code: Security Hardening and Adversarial Testingcited by 155
- 2025RepoAudit: An Autonomous LLM-Agent for Repository-Level Code Auditingcited by 49
- 2025LLMs in Software Security: A Survey of Vulnerability Detection Techniques and Insightscited by 47
- 2023ChatGPT for Vulnerability Detection, Classification, and Repair: How Far Are We?cited by 44
- 2024Generalization-Enhanced Code Vulnerability Detection via Multi-Task Instruction Fine-Tuningcited by 30
8 more
- 2024Multitask-based Evaluation of Open-Source LLM on Software Vulnerabilitycited by 23
- 2024Harnessing Large Language Models for Software Vulnerability Detection: A Comprehensive Benchmarking Studycited by 17
- 2024Outside the Comfort Zone: Analysing LLM Capabilities in Software Vulnerability Detectioncited by 16
- 2024On the Effectiveness of Function-Level Vulnerability Detectors for Inter-Procedural Vulnerabilitiescited by 10
- 2024An Extensive Comparison of Static Application Security Testing Toolscited by 10
- 2021A Critical Comparison on Six Static Analysis Tools: Detection, Agreement, and Precisioncited by 9
- 2024Pros and Cons! Evaluating ChatGPT on Software Vulnerabilitycited by 3
- 2025LLMpatronous: Harnessing the Power of LLMs For Vulnerability Detectioncited by 1
Built on by
Not cited yet.