MultiVer: Zero-Shot Multi-Agent Vulnerability Detection

Software vulnerabilities often depend on cross-file data flow, build options, framework conventions, and runtime guards, so isolated function classifiers produce fragile and poorly calibrated warnings. Repository-level LLM agents can gather richer evidence, but prior variants under-specify reproducibility, verifier behavior, baseline fairness, and statistical uncertainty. We present VulnAgent-R2, a budget-aware agentic auditing framework with three additional reusable modules: counterfactual evidence reweighting, build-aware verification-plan synthesis, and a cost-risk Pareto scheduler. The system combines graph triage, bounded context optimization, role-specialized agents, sceptic counter-evidence, selective dynamic verification, and calibrated fusion. On Devign, Big-Vul, DiverseVul, and PrimeVul, VulnAgent-R2 obtains 0.798/0.895, 0.739/0.871, 0.700/0.842, and 0.385/0.781 F1/AUROC, respectively. On JITVul it reaches 0.606 F1, 0.529 Top-1, and 0.742 Top-3 localization, while reducing online tokens by 38.3% over always-full multi-agent execution. Online time includes retrieval, LLM calls, CER scoring, verifier planning, compilation, and test execution, but excludes one-time shared indexing. Bootstrap tests show the PrimeVul gain over VulnAgent-X is +0.038 F1, 95% CI [0.020, 0.055], Holm-adjusted $p=0.009$. Treating vulnerability detection as calibrated evidence accumulation improves detection, localization, auditability, and cost control under the evaluated protocol, while remaining a prioritization aid rather than a replacement for manual review.Code is available at https://github.com/renweimeng/Vlun-Agent-X.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly being deployed as software engineering agents that autonomously contribute to repositories. A major benefit these agents present is their ability to find and patch security vulnerabilities in the codebases they oversee. To estimate the capability of agents in this domain, we introduce ZeroDayBench, a benchmark where LLM agents find and patch 22 novel critical vulnerabilities in open-source codebases. We focus our efforts on three popular frontier agentic LLMs: GPT-5.2, Claude Sonnet 4.5, and Grok 4.1. We find that frontier LLMs are not yet capable of autonomously solving our tasks and observe some behavioral patterns that suggest how these models can be improved in the domain of proactive cyberdefense.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly adopted for vulnerability detection, yet their reasoning remains fundamentally unsound. We identify a root cause shared by both major mitigation paradigms (agent-based debate and retrieval augmentation): reasoning in an ungrounded deliberative space that lacks a bounded, hypothesis-specific evidence base. Without such grounding, agents fabricate cross-function dependencies, and retrieval heuristics supply generic knowledge decoupled from the repository's data-flow topology. Consequently, the resulting conclusions are driven by rhetorical persuasiveness rather than verifiable facts. To ground this deliberation, we present AEGIS, a novel multi-agent framework that shifts detection from ungrounded speculation to forensic verification over a closed factual substrate. Guided by a "From Clue to Verdict" philosophy, AEGIS first identifies suspicious code anomalies (clues), then dynamically reconstructs per-variable dependency chains for each clue via on-demand slicing over a repository-level Code Property Graph. Within this closed evidence boundary, a Verifier Agent constructs competing dialectical arguments for and against exploitability, while an independent Audit Agent scrutinizes every claim against the trace, exercising veto power to prevent hallucinated verdicts. Evaluation on the rigorous PrimeVul dataset demonstrates that AEGIS establishes a new state-of-the-art, achieving 122 Pair-wise Correct Predictions. To our knowledge, this is the first approach to surpass 100 on this benchmark. It reduces the false positive rate by up to 54.40% compared to leading baselines, at an average cost of $0.09 per sample without any task-specific training.