FuzzingBrain-Bench V1: Evaluating Open-Ended Bug Discovery by LLMs

Vulnerability discovery is becoming an important ability of large language model (LLM) agents: agents that silently miss real defects leave critical software exposed. Rigorously measuring this ability is therefore urgent, but existing benchmarks are gameable through data contamination, score recall against an unknowable vulnerability set, often rely on synthetic bugs, and report a single end-to-end verdict that cannot localize where an agent fails. Vulnerability discovery is a composite ability: an agent must comprehend source code, infer input constraints, construct inputs, execute them, and iteratively correct from feedback. We recast its measurement as an input-prediction task with a closed, deterministic ground truth: using coverage-guided fuzzing, we mine deep target branches in real-world C/C++ programs and ask an agent to predict an input that drives execution to a given branch. This decomposes discovery into three task modes over 22 real-world C/C++ programs spanning 15 domains. Open-loop and Feedback-enabled share 60 fixed-target task instances across 16 of these codebases (13 domains), testing input construction without and with a distance oracle to isolate code comprehension from feedback-driven correction. Online Arena instead removes the predefined target and scores path exploration by coverage gain on a separate, partially overlapping pool of 11 programs; agents collectively confirmed 13 distinct bugs across six programs. Evaluating 15 default-effort model-scaffold configurations, the best reaches only 55.0% pass rate in the Feedback-enabled mode, and the mean across seven paired Claude Code configurations is 36.4% with feedback versus 19.3% without. Decomposing failures, we find constraint inference, not navigation, is the dominant bottleneck. We release SWE-Test with a turnkey evaluation environment.

Large language models (LLMs) now support automated software security tasks, including vulnerability discovery and proof-of-concept (PoC) generation. Existing benchmarks do not faithfully evaluate LLMs in real-world bug hunting scenarios because they rely on fuzzing harnesses, target-specific descriptions, or vulnerability-reproduction tasks. We present SEC-bench Pro, a benchmark for measuring agent bug hunting on critical, high-complexity software systems. This work discloses reports with concrete PoC inputs and links fixes into reproducible tasks through a three-phase pipeline for vulnerability collection, environment reconstruction, and oracle-based validation. We instantiate SEC-bench Pro with 183 validated vulnerabilities across V8 and SpiderMonkey, including a V8 subset with more than $1.5 million in cumulative Google Vulnerability Reward Program awards. These instances span memory-safety, sandbox, JIT, and race-condition bugs under browser-grade and runtime-grade execution conditions. Our evaluation shows that coding agents with frontier models remain below 40% success on both evaluated engines. The open-weight Kimi-K2.6 baseline reaches 11.7% on V8, while the strongest frontier configuration reaches 32.0% on V8 and 38.8% on SpiderMonkey. ClaudeCode and Codex solve complementary instance sets, and their two-agent union reaches 37.9% on V8 and 48.8% on SpiderMonkey. SEC-bench Pro provides robust environments for assessing LLM-based security agents and exposes limitations in long-horizon bug hunting tasks.

There are various benchmarks to evaluate bugfixing capabilities of Large Language Models. However, most widespread benchmarks do not fully reflect real-world bugfixing practices. They are small, weakening statistical reliability, and the buggy programs are often similar to one another, potentially distorting evaluation results. The range of bug types can also be narrow, failing to capture a representative range of bugs. To address these issues, we introduce MegaBugFix, a large-scale bugfixing benchmark containing 12,629 buggy Python programs synthesized from correct ones by a Large Language Model. Bug injections were generated as diffs representing code changes. Through this approach, we were able to avoid common pitfalls of LLM-based mutation techniques like injecting overly simplistic bugs or failing to modify the input program. We evaluated 13 open-weight models on MegaBugFix and baseline benchmarks, finding consistently lower performance on MegaBugFix. This reveals that our benchmark presents more challenging bugs and exposes model failures that may remain hidden when evaluating on existing benchmarks. The benchmark and fine-tuned model used for bug injection are available at hf.co/collections/szalontaib/megabugfix.