Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper introduces a retrieval-augmented revision approach to improve the safety of code LLMs at inference time by surfacing relevant security risks and retrieving related security discussions from Stack Overflow. The method revises generated code based on retrieved security knowledge, enhancing interpretability, robustness, and safety alignment without requiring model retraining. Experiments on real-world and benchmark datasets demonstrate that the approach improves code security compared to prompting alone, without introducing new vulnerabilities as measured by static analysis.
Forget retraining: this retrieval-augmented method dynamically patches code LLMs against new vulnerabilities using Stack Overflow discussions, boosting security without model updates.
Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed for code generation in high-stakes software development, yet their limited transparency in security reasoning and brittleness to evolving vulnerability patterns raise critical trustworthiness concerns. Models trained on static datasets cannot readily adapt to newly discovered vulnerabilities or changing security standards without retraining, leading to the repeated generation of unsafe code. We present a principled approach to trustworthy code generation by design that operates as an inference-time safety mechanism. Our approach employs retrieval-augmented generation to surface relevant security risks in generated code and retrieve related security discussions from a curated Stack Overflow knowledge base, which are then used to guide an LLM during code revision. This design emphasizes three aspects relevant to trustworthiness: (1) interpretability, through transparent safety interventions grounded in expert community explanations; (2) robustness, by allowing adaptation to evolving security practices without model retraining; and (3) safety alignment, through real-time intervention before unsafe code reaches deployment. Across real-world and benchmark datasets, our approach improves the security of LLM-generated code compared to prompting alone, while introducing no new vulnerabilities as measured by static analysis. These results suggest that principled, retrieval-augmented inference-time interventions can serve as a complementary mechanism for improving the safety of LLM-based code generation, and highlight the ongoing value of community knowledge in supporting trustworthy AI deployment.
