# Representation Matters: An Empirical Study of Program Representations for LLM Vulnerability Reasoning

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.25356 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.25356/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Reasoning for agents, planning and code, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning.
- Builds on 3 of its 36 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 24 Jun 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM reasoning / [Reasoning for agents, planning and code](https://mlsanity.com/lr/reasoning-for-agents-planning-and-code/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 3 of 3)

- [Vulnerability Detection with Code Language Models: How Far Are We?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.18624/) (2024)
- [Chain-of-Thought Prompting of Large Language Models for Discovering and Fixing Software Vulnerabilities](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.17230/) (2024)
- [A Controlled Experiment of Different Code Representations for Learning-Based Bug Repair](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2110.14081/) (2021)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used for automated vulnerability detection, but it remains unclear how program structure and semantics should be represented for LLM-based reasoning. Most prompting-based approaches provide raw source code, implicitly assuming that more source-level context gives the model better evidence. This paper challenges that assumption through RepBench, an empirical benchmark comparing raw source code with static-analysis-based program representations. RepBench converts real-world C/C++ vulnerability testcases into multiple representations: raw source, Abstract Syntax Trees (ASTs), Control-Flow Graphs (CFGs), Program Dependence Graphs (PDGs), their combinations, and an auxiliary track of enriched PDGs (ePDGs). Using a curated PrimeVul-derived corpus of 107 Joern-based testcases across five CWE categories, we evaluate ten representation variants under a fixed Chain-of-Thought and structured-output protocol, plus 19 additional ePDG cases generated through VulChecker/Hector. Representation choice substantially affects LLM vulnerability reasoning. The strongest variant, AST+PDG, achieves 83.2% accuracy, compared with 53.5% for raw source. At the family level, graph-only prompts outperform both source-only and source-plus-graph prompts while requiring far less prompt overhead. These results reveal a context dilution effect: adding raw source code to compact structural graph evidence can degrade reasoning by making vulnerability-relevant evidence less salient. Overall, our findings show that carefully selected structural representations offer a better accuracy-overhead tradeoff than simply giving LLMs more raw input, and suggest that static analysis can serve as an effective prompt-construction layer for security-focused LLM reasoning.