mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Seclens: Role-specific Evaluation of LLM's for security vulnerablity detection

arXiv 2604.01637 ↗First posted 2 Apr 2026cs.CR cs.AIcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Existing benchmarks for LLM-based vulnerability detection compress model performance into a single metric, which fails to reflect the distinct priorities of different stakeholders. For example, a CISO may emphasize high recall of critical vulnerabilities, an engineering leader may prioritize minimizing false positives, and an AI officer may balance capability against cost. To address this limitation, we introduce SecLens-R, a multi-stakeholder evaluation framework structured around 35 shared dimensions grouped into 7 measurement categories. The framework defines five role-specific weighting profiles: CISO, Chief AI Officer, Security Researcher, Head of Engineering, and AI-as-Actor. Each profile selects 12 to 16 dimensions with weights summing to 80, yielding a composite Decision Score between 0 and 100. We apply SecLens-R to evaluate 12 frontier models on a dataset of 406 tasks derived from 93 open-source projects, covering 10 programming languages and 8 OWASP-aligned vulnerability categories. Evaluations are conducted across two settings: Code-in-Prompt (CIP) and Tool-Use (TU). Results show substantial variation across stakeholder perspectives, with Decision Scores differing by as much as 31 points for the same model. For instance, Qwen3-Coder achieves an A (76.3) under the Head of Engineering profile but a D (45.2) under the CISO profile, while GPT-5.4 shows a similar disparity. These findings demonstrate that vulnerability detection is inherently a multi-objective problem and that stakeholder-aware evaluation provides insights that single aggregated metrics obscure.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 20 of its 38 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 2 Apr 2026.

Builds on

20 of 38 references.

References · 20

  1. 2023SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?cited by 3,193
  2. 2018Datasheets for Datasetscited by 1,371
  3. 2023AgentBench: Evaluating LLMs as Agentscited by 1,211
  4. 2024Chatbot Arena: An Open Platform for Evaluating LLMs by Human Preferencecited by 1,151
  5. 2018Model Cards for Model Reportingcited by 1,068
  6. 2021Asleep at the Keyboard? Assessing the Security of GitHub Copilot's Code Contributionscited by 417
  7. 2024Vulnerability Detection with Code Language Models: How Far Are We?cited by 133
  8. 2023Purple Llama CyberSecEval: A Secure Coding Benchmark for Language Modelscited by 130
  9. 2024LLM Agents can Autonomously Hack Websitescited by 108
  10. 2024IRIS: LLM-Assisted Static Analysis for Detecting Security Vulnerabilitiescited by 100
  11. 2023LLMs Cannot Reliably Identify and Reason About Security Vulnerabilities (Yet?): A Comprehensive Evaluation, Framework, and Benchmarkscited by 94
  12. 2025SEC-bench: Automated Benchmarking of LLM Agents on Real-World Software Security Taskscited by 69
8 more
  1. 2023LLMSecEval: A Dataset of Natural Language Prompts for Security Evaluationscited by 58
  2. 2025LLMs in Software Security: A Survey of Vulnerability Detection Techniques and Insightscited by 44
  3. 2023How Far Have We Gone in Vulnerability Detection Using Large Language Modelscited by 27
  4. 2025SecVulEval: Benchmarking LLMs for Real-World C/C++ Vulnerability Detectioncited by 19
  5. 2024VulDetectBench: Evaluating the Deep Capability of Vulnerability Detection with Large Language Modelscited by 11
  6. 2024CEBench: A Benchmarking Toolkit for the Cost-Effectiveness of LLM Pipelinescited by 11
  7. 2026SastBench: A Benchmark for Testing Agentic SAST Triagecited by 2
  8. 2026TOSSS: a CVE-based Software Security Benchmark for Large Language Modelscited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.