AutoTrace: From Patches to Triggers via Agentic Interprocedural Exploration
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Agent threats, guardrails and governance
Abstract (arXiv)
Given a vulnerability-fixing commit, trigger localization asks which specific statement turns the vulnerable program state into a concrete unsafe operation. This question is harder than binary vulnerability detection because the answer demands interprocedural, causal reasoning: in a substantial fraction of real-world CVEs the triggering statement lies several call layers outside the patched function, beyond the reach of static rule sets and pattern-matching language models alike. We present AutoTrace, an agentic pipeline that localizes vulnerability triggers by exploring a code property graph layer by layer, with LLM agents deciding where to look next and deterministic admissibility gates deciding what evidence is required before a trigger can be reported. Agents never accept a trigger on their own authority; every reported trigger is backed by explicit evidence drawn from the graph, so the pipeline covers both intra- and interprocedural vulnerabilities without relying on ungrounded model judgment. On the full InterPVD benchmark, AutoTrace reaches 75.0% VulnHit and 80.8% FuncHit, surpassing the prior state of the art on the same corpus. Building on the same machinery, we construct SinkTrace-Bench, a dataset that exposes each vulnerability as a source-to-sink (S2S) causal chain from attacker-controlled input through propagation to the dangerous operation, drawn from matched vulnerable and patched program states. It comprises 1,542 verifier-confirmed, perfectly balanced vulnerable/safe samples whose label fidelity we audit against expert annotations. Benchmarking frontier LLMs on it, we find that even the strongest struggle to separate the matched pairs, exposing the causal-reasoning gap that trigger localization targets. Artifact available at https://github.com/Erroristotle/AutoTrace.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Agent threats, guardrails and governance, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 10 of its 23 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 13 Jul 2026.
Builds on
10 of 23 references.
References · 10
- 2019Devign: Effective Vulnerability Identification by Learning Comprehensive Program Semantics via Graph Neural Networkscited by 272
- 2020Deep Learning based Vulnerability Detection: Are We There Yet?cited by 144
- 2024IRIS: LLM-Assisted Static Analysis for Detecting Security Vulnerabilitiescited by 103
- 2018SySeVR: A Framework for Using Deep Learning to Detect Software Vulnerabilitiescited by 92
- 2025RepoAudit: An Autonomous LLM-Agent for Repository-Level Code Auditingcited by 49
- 2021VELVET: a noVel Ensemble Learning approach to automatically locate VulnErable sTatementscited by 20
- 2024On the Effectiveness of Function-Level Vulnerability Detectors for Inter-Procedural Vulnerabilitiescited by 10
- 2024Toward Improved Deep Learning-based Vulnerability Detectioncited by 9
- 2025Trace Gadgets: Minimizing Code Context for Machine Learning-Based Vulnerability Predictioncited by 5
- 2024Utilizing Precise and Complete Code Context to Guide LLM in Automatic False Positive Mitigationcited by 4
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Graph Is the Verifier: Agentic Reinforcement Learning for Interprocedural Vulnerability Detection
- 2026CLEAR: Causal Context-Based Agentic Reasoning for Vulnerability Detection
- 2025Benchmarking LLMs and LLM-based Agents in Practical Vulnerability Detection for Code Repositories
- 2026Code-Augur: Agentic Vulnerability Detection via Specification Inference
- 2026FuzzingBrain V2: A Multi-Agent LLM System for Automated Vulnerability Discovery and Reproduction
- 2025AutoPatch: Multi-Agent Framework for Patching Real-World CVE Vulnerabilities
- 2026Verify Before You Fix: Agentic Execution Grounding for Trustworthy Cross-Language Code Analysis
- 2026Detecting Vulnerability-Inducing Commits via Multi-Stage Reasoning with LLM-Based Agents