An Empirical Analysis of Static Analysis Methods for Detection and Mitigation of Code Library Hallucinations

LLMs are increasingly used for code generation, yet they frequently hallucinate non-existent software packages, creating exploitable entry points into the software supply chain. We make four contributions to this problem. First, we show that prior evaluation methodologies systematically inflate hallucination rates by misclassifying standard-library modules as hallucinations in some languages. For Python, the overestimation reaches 9.4 percentage points. Second, we evaluate seven inference-time defenses for mitigating package hallucinations, including five guided decoding strategies (Greedy, Contrastive, DoLa, Nudging, and Active Layer-Contrastive Decoding), an iterative self-refinement approach (Self-Refine), and a Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG)-based defense.. Across eight models spanning five families and four programming languages (Python, JavaScript, Ruby, Rust), RAG reduces the package hallucination rate (PHR) in 18 of 32 model--language configurations. Third, we introduce Package Utility (PU) to assess whether defenses preserve valid and task-relevant recommendations. Among strategies evaluated, Greedy decoding provides the strongest average mitigation--utility trade-off. Fourth, we stress-test all strategies under adversarial prompts seeded with fabricated package names and find that PHR surges by up to 45 percentage points relative to standard prompts, with Ruby consistently the most vulnerable language (80.9--95.2%). Under adversarial conditions, RAG and Self-Refine outperform all decoding-only strategies, indicating that robust defense requires either external grounding or iterative self-verification when prompts are actively hostile. Our results recast package hallucination as both a measurement problem and a decoding-time control problem, and they demonstrate that the choice of defense must be matched to the threat model and recommendation utility.

Code translation converts source code from one programming language to another while preserving its functionality. Although Large Language Models (LLMs) have improved code translation, their outputs still contain hallucinations: generated code that conflicts with the source program, violates target-language facts, or introduces contextually inconsistent dependencies. These failures are especially harmful in translation because small semantic deviations can silently change program behavior. Existing hallucination studies mainly focus on natural-language generation or code generation, leaving the forms, distribution, and mitigation of hallucinations in cross-language code translation insufficiently characterized. This paper presents a systematic empirical study of LLM hallucinations in code translation. Across three benchmark datasets, six language pairs, and seven LLMs, we construct a taxonomy with three major categories: Semantic Consistency Conflicts, Factual Knowledge Conflicts, and Project Context Deviations. We manually annotate 13,919 hallucination cases and analyze how hallucination types vary across models, datasets, and language directions. Guided by the taxonomy, we further propose HaluCodeTran, a mitigation framework that combines BM25-based retrieval of relevant translation examples with taxonomy-aware reflective refinement. The study provides an execution-tested characterization of code-translation hallucinations and a practical baseline for building more reliable LLM-based code migration tools.

As AI-code assistant tools become widespread, automatic assessment of the correctness of generated code becomes a significant challenge. Code LLMs are prone to hallucinations, which may lead to code that does not solve the required problem, or even to code with severe security vulnerabilities. In this paper, we introduce CodeTD -- the first approach to pre-execution assessment of code correctness based on topological data analysis (TDA) of Code LLMs' attention maps. Our method quantifies prompt-generation mismatch using topological patterns of attention maps. We carry out experiments with common benchmarks (HumanEval, MBPP, BigCodeBench, MultiPL-E), 5 programming languages and 10 Code LLMs of size up to 34B parameters. The experimental results show that the proposed method outperforms recent baselines. Moreover, CodeTD is transferable between coding benchmarks.