AutoBaxBuilder: Bootstrapping Code Security Benchmarking
On the map: Synthetic data and self-improvement for LLMs → Code and instruction data synthesis
Abstract (arXiv)
As large language models (LLMs) see wide adoption in software engineering, the reliable assessment of the correctness and security of LLM-generated code is crucial. Notably, prior work showed that LLMs are prone to generating code with security vulnerabilities, highlighting that security is often overlooked. These insights were enabled by specialized benchmarks crafted by security experts through significant manual effort. However, benchmarks (i) inevitably end up contaminating training data, (ii) must extend to new tasks to provide a more complete picture, and (iii) must increase in difficulty to challenge more capable LLMs. In this work, we address these challenges and present AutoBaxBuilder, an automated pipeline that generates code security benchmarking tasks from scratch. It leverages the code-understanding capabilities of LLMs combined with robust reliability checks to construct functional tests and end-to-end security-probing exploits. The quality of the pipeline is quantitatively confirmed by aligning its predictions with an expert-written baseline and qualitatively validated through manual soundness verification. We use AutoBaxBuilder to construct a new benchmark and release it to the public as AutoBaxBench, together with a thorough evaluation on contemporary LLMs. AutoBaxBuilder generates new tasks in under 2 hours, for less than USD 4. Including a manual verification, this reduces the required human effort for benchmark construction by a factor of 12.
Key facts. Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Code and instruction data synthesis, one of 13 directions in Synthetic data and self-improvement for LLMs. Builds on 28 of its 57 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 24 Dec 2025.
Builds on
28 of 57 references.
References · 28
- 2024The Llama 3 Herd of Modelscited by 14,192
- 2021Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Codecited by 8,053
- 2024GPT-4o System Cardcited by 4,467
- 2021Program Synthesis with Large Language Modelscited by 3,509
- 2023SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?cited by 3,193
- 2024Qwen2.5-Coder Technical Reportcited by 1,151
- 2023Teaching Large Language Models to Self-Debugcited by 963
- 2021Measuring Coding Challenge Competence With APPScited by 879
- 2023CRITIC: Large Language Models Can Self-Correct with Tool-Interactive Critiquingcited by 751
- 2021Asleep at the Keyboard? Assessing the Security of GitHub Copilot's Code Contributionscited by 417
- 2022CodeT: Code Generation with Generated Testscited by 369
- 2024Cybench: A Framework for Evaluating Cybersecurity Capabilities and Risks of Language Modelscited by 156
16 more
- 2023Purple Llama CyberSecEval: A Secure Coding Benchmark for Language Modelscited by 130
- 2024SWT-Bench: Testing and Validating Real-World Bug-Fixes with Code Agentscited by 129
- 2025REASONING GYM: Reasoning Environments for Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewardscited by 121
- 2022Large Language Models are Few-shot Testers: Exploring LLM-based General Bug Reproductioncited by 110
- 2024IRIS: LLM-Assisted Static Analysis for Detecting Security Vulnerabilitiescited by 100
- 2025CVE-Bench: A Benchmark for AI Agents' Ability to Exploit Real-World Web Application Vulnerabilitiescited by 90
- 2025SEC-bench: Automated Benchmarking of LLM Agents on Real-World Software Security Taskscited by 69
- 2024Instruction Tuning for Secure Code Generationcited by 63
- 2025CWEval: Outcome-driven Evaluation on Functionality and Security of LLM Code Generationcited by 55
- 2023CodeLMSec Benchmark: Systematically Evaluating and Finding Security Vulnerabilities in Black-Box Code Language Modelscited by 52
- 2024EnIGMA: Interactive Tools Substantially Assist LM Agents in Finding Security Vulnerabilitiescited by 51
- 2025BaxBench: Can LLMs Generate Correct and Secure Backends?cited by 38
- 2024Constrained Decoding for Secure Code Generationcited by 35
- 2025Automated Benchmark Generation for Repository-Level Coding Taskscited by 27
- 2024Comparison of Static Application Security Testing Tools and Large Language Models for Repo-level Vulnerability Detectioncited by 18
- 2023"False negative -- that one is going to kill you": Understanding Industry Perspectives of Static Analysis based Security Testingcited by 8
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 4.
4 papers.
- 2026Honeyval: A Comprehensive Evaluation Framework for LLM-powered HTTP Honeypotscited by 1
- 2026SecProbe: Adaptive Evaluation of Coding Agents on Cybersecurity Vulnerabilitiescited by 0
- 2026SecureVibe: Making Vibe Coding More Securecited by 0
- 2026AuraForge: Scaling Security Supervision for Training Coding Agentscited by 0
- 2026AuraForge: Scaling Security Supervision for Training Coding Agents1 Oct 2026
- 2026SecureVibe: Making Vibe Coding More Secure29 Sep 2026
- 2026SecProbe: Adaptive Evaluation of Coding Agents on Cybersecurity Vulnerabilities27 Sep 2026
- 2026Honeyval: A Comprehensive Evaluation Framework for LLM-powered HTTP Honeypots28 May 2026
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026RealSec-bench: A Benchmark for Evaluating Secure Code Generation in Real-World Repositories
- 2026Enhancing Reliability in LLM-Based Secure Code Generation
- 2024AutoSafeCoder: A Multi-Agent Framework for Securing LLM Code Generation through Static Analysis and Fuzz Testing
- 2026An Empirical Evaluation of LLM-Generated Code Security Across Prompting Methods
- 2025Rethinking the Evaluation of Secure Code Generation
- 2026Poster: Rethinking Security in LLM Code Generation through Real-World Risk Scenarios
- 2024HexaCoder: Secure Code Generation via Oracle-Guided Synthetic Training Data
- 2025SOSecure: Safer Code Generation with RAG and StackOverflow Discussions