mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

A Quasi-Experimental Developer Study of Security Training in LLM-Assisted Web Application Development

arXiv 2604.17763 ↗First posted 20 Apr 2026cs.CR cs.LGcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

This paper presents a controlled quasi-experimental developer study examining whether a layer-based security training package is associated with improved security quality in LLM-assisted implementation of an identity-centric Java Spring Boot backend. The study uses a mixed design with a within-subject pre-training versus post-training comparison and an exploratory between-subject expertise factor. Twelve developers completed matched runs under a common interface, fixed model configuration, counterbalanced task sets, and a shared starter project. Security outcomes were assessed via independent manual validation of submitted repositories by the first and second authors. The primary participant-level endpoint was a severity-weighted validated-weakness score. The post-training condition showed a significant paired reduction under an exact Wilcoxon signed-rank test (p = 0.0059). In aggregate, validated weaknesses decreased from 162 to 111 (31.5%), the severity-weighted burden decreased from 432 to 267 (38.2%), and critical findings decreased from 24 to 5 (79.2%). The largest reductions were in authorization and object access (53.3%) and in authentication, credential policy, and recovery weaknesses (44.7%). Session and browser trust-boundary issues showed minimal change, while sensitive-data and cryptographic weaknesses showed only marginal improvement. These results suggest that, under the tested conditions, post-training runs reduce validated security burden in LLM-assisted backend development without modifying the model. They do not support replacing secure defaults, static analysis, expert review, or operational hardening.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 27 of its 35 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 20 Apr 2026.

Builds on

27 of 35 references.

References · 27

  1. 2021Asleep at the Keyboard? Assessing the Security of GitHub Copilot's Code Contributionscited by 431
  2. 2023Large Language Models for Software Engineering: A Systematic Literature Reviewcited by 399
  3. 2022Do Users Write More Insecure Code with AI Assistants?cited by 192
  4. 2022Lost at C: A User Study on the Security Implications of Large Language Model Code Assistantscited by 91
  5. 2023How Secure is Code Generated by ChatGPT?cited by 81
  6. 2024Large Language Models for Cyber Security: A Systematic Literature Reviewcited by 68
  7. 2023LLMSecEval: A Dataset of Natural Language Prompts for Security Evaluationscited by 62
  8. 2025CWEval: Outcome-driven Evaluation on Functionality and Security of LLM Code Generationcited by 59
  9. 2025BaxBench: Can LLMs Generate Correct and Secure Backends?cited by 41
  10. 2023SALLM: Security Assessment of Generated Codecited by 39
  11. 2023Security Weaknesses of Copilot-Generated Code in GitHub Projects: An Empirical Studycited by 38
  12. 2024Prompting Techniques for Secure Code Generation: A Systematic Investigationcited by 34
15 more
  1. 2024Chain-of-Thought Prompting of Large Language Models for Discovering and Fixing Software Vulnerabilitiescited by 31
  2. 2024Using AI Assistants in Software Development: A Qualitative Study on Security Practices and Concernscited by 28
  3. 2024How secure is AI-generated Code: A Large-Scale Comparison of Large Language Modelscited by 24
  4. 2024PromSec: Prompt Optimization for Secure Generation of Functional Source Code with Large Language Models (LLMs)cited by 19
  5. 2025Security and Quality in LLM-Generated Code: A Multi-Language, Multi-Model Analysiscited by 19
  6. 2025Give LLMs a Security Course: Securing Retrieval-Augmented Code Generation via Knowledge Injectioncited by 16
  7. 2023A User-centered Security Evaluation of Copilotcited by 15
  8. 2025Benchmarking Prompt Engineering Techniques for Secure Code Generation with GPT Modelscited by 12
  9. 2024An Investigation into Misuse of Java Security APIs by Large Language Modelscited by 11
  10. 2024DeVAIC: A Tool for Security Assessment of AI-generated Codecited by 8
  11. 2024A Study of Vulnerability Repair in JavaScript Programs with Large Language Modelscited by 7
  12. 2024How Well Do Large Language Models Serve as End-to-End Secure Code Agents for Python?cited by 7
  13. 2025Can You Really Trust Code Copilots? Evaluating Large Language Models from a Code Security Perspectivecited by 6
  14. 2022Software Security during Modern Code Review: The Developer's Perspectivecited by 2
  15. 2025Evaluating Large Language Models in Vulnerability Detection Under Variable Context Windowscited by 2

Built on by

Not cited yet.