Thanks for highlighting a key aspect. It may be informative to see all the ways in which the LLM got it wrong along the way, before arriving at the cherrypicke

Thanks for highlighting a key aspect. It may be informative to see all the ways in which the LLM got it wrong along the way, before arriving at the cherrypicked example. For instance, was this the only pattern flagged as a potential bug in the process? That said, I am surprised at how far pattern matching can get you. Certain exploitation requires arithmetic. If LLMs struggle with simple arithmetic, then it is unclear why we would expect them to do well with these. In the GPZ example, it does not appear that the assistant can do the arithmetic or realize the negative offset and its implication. Rather, it looks like pattern matching that mimics static dataflow analysis in order to arrive at the assertion failure. "To cause the assertion failure, we need a constraint on a column with index greater than 3 or smaller than 1."