LogicEval: A Systematic Framework for Evaluating Automated Repair Techniques for Logical Vulnerabilities in Real-World Software

Large Language Models (LLMs) show promise for Automated Program Repair (APR), yet their effectiveness on security vulnerabilities remains poorly characterized. This study analyzes 319 LLM-generated security patchesacross 64 Java vulnerabilities from the Vul4J benchmark. Using tri-axis evaluation (compilation, security via PoV tests, functionality via test suites), the analysis reveals that only 24.8% of patches achieve full correctness, while 51.4% fail both security and functionality. The dominant failure mode is semantic misunderstanding: LLMs produce syntactically valid code but apply incorrect repair strategies. The proposed Security Repair Score (SRS) quantifies this gap, showing LLMs preserve functionality (mean 0.832) but struggle with security (mean 0.251). Vulnerability type strongly predicts difficulty, with fix rates ranging from 0% (input validation) to 45% (infinite loop). These findings demonstrate that LLM security patches require rigorous validation before deployment.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly applied to the automated repair of C/C++ security vulnerabilities, and compile rate is a commonly reported proxy for progress: whether the generated patch compiles. We argue that compile rate is a scientifically unreliable metric for single-function vulnerability repair, and we support this with five controlled experiments over 203 vulnerable functions from Big-Vul, three open-source code LLMs (350M to 6.7B parameters), and three prompting strategies. Compile rate (i) barely responds to an intervention that substantially improves the generated code; (ii) is dominated by evaluation-harness and dataset artifacts rather than model quality, with about 64% of compile failures not attributable to the model, a share that is nearly invariant across models; (iii) shifts by 1.8 to 2.7 times on identical patches under a single compiler-standard flag, with zero regressions; (iv) ranks the three models in the opposite order to reference-similarity metrics; and (v) rewards non-repairs when used as an optimization target, since a compiler-feedback loop raises compile rate while similarity to the human fix falls, with manual inspection finding deletion- and placeholder-style non-repairs among the newly compiling outputs. The natural fallback, whole-function CodeBLEU, also fails: an unchanged copy of the vulnerable input outscores every model. We also examine diff_F1, a change-aware screen that scores only the edited region. It gives exactly zero credit to a no-op and near-zero credit to some, though not all, of the deletion-based gaming patches we observed, while still crediting genuine partial edits, so it may serve as a cheap screen before deeper, execution-based analysis. It is not a repair-quality metric, and we report where it falls short. Our findings argue for change-aware, execution-grounded evaluation of LLM-based vulnerability repair.

Automated vulnerability repair has emerged as a promising direction to mitigate the growing number of software vulnerabilities. Recent advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) have further accelerated research in automated repair. However, existing frameworks remain largely restricted to memory-related vulnerabilities and locally repairable vulnerability settings, leaving generalization to unseen vulnerability types underexplored. Their evaluations are often limited to a single programming language, and largely rely on proprietary models. In this paper, we propose RAVEN, a scalable, efficient and autonomous framework that integrates an agentic retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) pipeline with controlled iterative repair in a unified framework. The framework utilizes open-source LLMs in a fully locally deployable setting with limited GPU requirements, while building a multi-faceted retrieval pipeline to retrieve historically relevant vulnerability fixes and guide the patch generation. In addition, RAVEN introduces a dedicated Curator Agent that retrieves cross-file dependencies from the target repository, to fix complex vulnerabilities that cannot be addressed using local vulnerable code alone. We evaluate RAVEN on 160 real-world CVE vulnerabilities across diverse vulnerability types, two programming languages, unseen CWE categories, and out-of-distribution settings. RAVEN achieves an overall repair success rate of 83.13%, outperforming all existing state-of-the-art repair frameworks, while also demonstrating strong generalization capabilities and maintaining the repair cost negligible.