Researchers and practitioners increasingly apply Large Language Models (LLMs) for automated vulnerability detection. Recent work has shown that LLMs are susceptible to the same cognitive heuristics that bias human judgment. Yet, no work has investigated whether these heuristics affect a model's assessment of code vulnerabilities. In this paper, we present the first systematic exploration of cognitive heuristics in LLM-driven code vulnerability detection. We introduce a controlled framework that holds the code fixed and only varies the surrounding context to trigger three cognitive heuristics: the halo effect through author attribution, the framing effect through task objectives and consequences, and the anchoring effect through prior analysis results. Within this framework, we evaluate eight LLMs across three programming languages and perform both quantitative and code-level analyses. Our findings demonstrate that all evaluated models are susceptible to these heuristics. Cross-model average susceptibility is highest for framing at 33.2%, followed by anchoring at 23.5% and halo at 18.4%. Code-level analysis reveals that vulnerabilities that require semantic reasoning for detection are more susceptible to cognitive heuristics than those identifiable through pattern matching. Furthermore, models often change their verdict from safe to vulnerable based on the cognitive condition, without accurately identifying the actual vulnerability. To highlight the practical impact, we demonstrate a proof-of-concept black-box cognitive attack that can suppress up to 97% of previously detected vulnerabilities. These findings indicate that cognitive susceptibility is a consistent and exploitable property of LLM-based vulnerability detection.
Large language models (LLMs) can detect software vulnerabilities, but how do they actually identify vulnerable code? We address this question using mechanistic interpretability; analyzing the internal computations of a neural network to understand its reasoning process.Using Circuit Tracer on Gemma-2-2b, we trace the computational pathways activated when the model classifies 472 C/C++ code samples as vulnerable or safe. Our analysis reveals a surprising finding: the model primarily relies on safety detectors, attention heads that recognize safe coding patterns, rather than directly detecting vulnerability signatures. When these safety detectors fail to activate, the model classifies code as vulnerable. We identify the critical neural components: specific attention heads in early layers (L5, L7) that focus on safety patterns, and Multilayer Perceptron (MLP) neurons in Layer 7 that encode vulnerability-related features. Ablation experiments confirm their causal role; removing Layer 11 drops vulnerability detection accuracy from 100% to 6%, while ablating just 20 neurons in Layer 7 reduces it by 50%.Our findings show that LLM vulnerability detection uses sparse, interpretable circuits (only 16% of model capacity), enabling circuit-level explanations for security predictions and targeted improvements to detection systems.
Large language models are increasingly used for vulnerability detection, yet their reliability under different prompt formulations remains uncharacterized. We present PromptAudit, a controlled evaluation framework that isolates prompt effects by fixing the dataset, decoding, and parsing while varying only the prompting strategy. Using five prompting strategies across five open-weight models on 1,000 CVEs (6,074 code samples spanning 16 programming languages), we evaluate accuracy, recall, abstention, coverage, and effective F1. We find that standard chain-of-thought prompting achieves the strongest overall operational performance, while few-shot prompting provides model-dependent benefits that are most pronounced for prompt-sensitive models. In contrast, adaptive chain-of-thought frequently suppresses recall and self-consistency induces excessive abstention, sharply reducing effective performance. These results show that vulnerability detection behavior is jointly determined by the model and the prompt, and that prompt sensitivity is a first-class system property that must be explicitly characterized in evaluation and deployment.
Steffen J. Camarato, Yahya Hmaiti, Mandana Ghadamian +1
Automated vulnerability detection is a fundamental task in software security, yet existing learning-based methods still struggle to capture the structural dependencies, domain-specific vulnerability knowledge, and complex program semantics required for accurate detection. Recent Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown strong code understanding ability, but directly prompting them with raw source code often leads to missed vulnerabilities or false alarms, especially when vulnerable and benign functions differ only in subtle semantic details. To address this, we propose VulTriage, a triple-path context augmentation framework for LLM-based vulnerability detection. VulTriage enhances the LLM input through three complementary paths: a Control Path that extracts and verbalizes AST, CFG, and DFG information to expose control and data dependencies; a Knowledge Path that retrieves relevant CWE-derived vulnerability patterns and examples through hybrid dense--sparse retrieval; and a Semantic Path that summarizes the functional behavior of the code before the final judgment. These contexts are integrated into a unified instruction to guide the LLM toward more reliable vulnerability reasoning. Experiments on the PrimeVul pair test set show that VulTriage achieves state-of-the-art performance, outperforming existing deep learning and LLM-based baselines on key pair-wise and classification metrics. Further ablation studies verify the effectiveness of each path, and additional experiments on the Kotlin dataset demonstrate the generalization ability of VulTriage under low-resource and class-imbalanced settings. Our code is available at https://github.com/vinsontang1/VulTriage