Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
38 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
59 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
41 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
7 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
50 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

We Have a Package for You! A Comprehensive Analysis of Package Hallucinations by Code Generating LLMs (2406.10279v2)

Published 12 Jun 2024 in cs.SE, cs.AI, cs.CR, and cs.LG
We Have a Package for You! A Comprehensive Analysis of Package Hallucinations by Code Generating LLMs

Abstract: The reliance of popular programming languages such as Python and JavaScript on centralized package repositories and open-source software, combined with the emergence of code-generating LLMs, has created a new type of threat to the software supply chain: package hallucinations. These hallucinations, which arise from fact-conflicting errors when generating code using LLMs, represent a novel form of package confusion attack that poses a critical threat to the integrity of the software supply chain. This paper conducts a rigorous and comprehensive evaluation of package hallucinations across different programming languages, settings, and parameters, exploring how a diverse set of models and configurations affect the likelihood of generating erroneous package recommendations and identifying the root causes of this phenomenon. Using 16 popular LLMs for code generation and two unique prompt datasets, we generate 576,000 code samples in two programming languages that we analyze for package hallucinations. Our findings reveal that that the average percentage of hallucinated packages is at least 5.2% for commercial models and 21.7% for open-source models, including a staggering 205,474 unique examples of hallucinated package names, further underscoring the severity and pervasiveness of this threat. To overcome this problem, we implement several hallucination mitigation strategies and show that they are able to significantly reduce the number of package hallucinations while maintaining code quality. Our experiments and findings highlight package hallucinations as a persistent and systemic phenomenon while using state-of-the-art LLMs for code generation, and a significant challenge which deserves the research community's urgent attention.

Comprehensive Analysis of Package Hallucinations by Code Generating LLMs

The paper "We Have a Package for You! A Comprehensive Analysis of Package Hallucinations by Code Generating LLMs" provides an exhaustive evaluation of a relatively nascent but critical threat to the software supply chain—package hallucinations in code-generating LLMs. As programming languages such as Python and JavaScript heavily depend on centralized open-source repositories for third-party packages, the emergence of LLMs has introduced a new dimension of package confusion attacks wherein models generate non-existent or fictitious package names. Such hallucinations can, hypothetically, lead to severe security breaches if exploited by malicious actors.

Overview of Findings

The research outlined in the paper is methodical and multifaceted, leveraging 16 popular LLMs for code generation across two unique programming languages: Python and JavaScript. Researchers generated a staggering 576,000 code samples, rigorously exploring package hallucinations across a variety of models and configurations.

The quantitative analysis reveals significant differences in hallucination rates between commercial (state-of-the-art) and open-source models. The average hallucination rate for commercial models was observed to be around 5.2%, while open-source models had a significantly higher rate at 21.7%. This discrepancy underscores the variance in threat exposure depending on the choice of LLM for code generation tasks. Notably, over 205,474 unique hallucinated package names were identified, illustrating the gravity and extensive potential attack surface this phenomenon creates.

Methodological Rigor

The paper's methodology encompasses sophisticated prompt datasets, combining programming queries from reliable sources like Stack Overflow and derived queries for broader comprehensiveness. This helped ensure the examination of hallucinations was both broad in scope and detailed in depth. Furthermore, the use of diverse heuristics for identifying package dependencies in generated code exemplifies a robust approach to tracing hallucinations effectively.

Models and Settings Impact

Crucially, the paper explores how different model settings influence hallucination generation. Factors investigated include temperature settings, training data recency, and decoding strategies. An increase in temperature settings was correlated with a higher hallucination rate, suggesting a direct trade-off between output creativity and factual fidelity in current LLM architectures.

Implications and Mitigation

The occurrence of hallucinated packages, especially persistent ones, raises concerns not only about the accuracy of generated code but also about cybersecurity integrity. The paper hypothesizes potential solutions, including leveraging advanced LLM design concepts and applying fine-tuning methodologies aiming to mitigate this phenomenon while maintaining code generation quality. By recognizing the inadequacies in relying solely on prompt-based solutions, the paper advocates for more grounded and systemic approaches such as Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG) and strategic fine-tuning.

Conclusion and Future Directions

This research highlights package hallucinations as a pervasive issue demanding urgent focus from the research community to bolster the safety and reliability of AI-driven code generation. The paper's comprehensive nature and rigorous methodology provide a substantial foundational understanding that can guide further research into mitigating risks and refining the utility of LLMs in software development.

Going forward, potential research trajectories could explore more holistic integration of external knowledge sources and improved architectural designs to completely mitigate package hallucinations. As next-gen models develop, addressing these security implications will be essential to safeguarding against threats introduced by the sophistication and broad deployment of LLMs in programming environments.

User Edit Pencil Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
Authors (6)
  1. Joseph Spracklen (2 papers)
  2. Raveen Wijewickrama (10 papers)
  3. Anindya Maiti (27 papers)
  4. Murtuza Jadliwala (28 papers)
  5. A H M Nazmus Sakib (1 paper)
  6. Bimal Viswanath (11 papers)
Citations (4)
Youtube Logo Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com