Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Deep Learning based Vulnerability Detection: Are We There Yet?

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2009.07235 v1 pith:PS6P5MGJ submitted 2020-09-03 cs.SE

classification cs.SE
keywords vulnerabilitypredictiondl-baseddatadetectionexistingmodelvulnerabilities
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Automated detection of software vulnerabilities is a fundamental problem in software security. Existing program analysis techniques either suffer from high false positives or false negatives. Recent progress in Deep Learning (DL) has resulted in a surge of interest in applying DL for automated vulnerability detection. Several recent studies have demonstrated promising results achieving an accuracy of up to 95% at detecting vulnerabilities. In this paper, we ask, "how well do the state-of-the-art DL-based techniques perform in a real-world vulnerability prediction scenario?". To our surprise, we find that their performance drops by more than 50%. A systematic investigation of what causes such precipitous performance drop reveals that existing DL-based vulnerability prediction approaches suffer from challenges with the training data (e.g., data duplication, unrealistic distribution of vulnerable classes, etc.) and with the model choices (e.g., simple token-based models). As a result, these approaches often do not learn features related to the actual cause of the vulnerabilities. Instead, they learn unrelated artifacts from the dataset (e.g., specific variable/function names, etc.). Leveraging these empirical findings, we demonstrate how a more principled approach to data collection and model design, based on realistic settings of vulnerability prediction, can lead to better solutions. The resulting tools perform significantly better than the studied baseline: up to 33.57% boost in precision and 128.38% boost in recall compared to the best performing model in the literature. Overall, this paper elucidates existing DL-based vulnerability prediction systems' potential issues and draws a roadmap for future DL-based vulnerability prediction research. In that spirit, we make available all the artifacts supporting our results: https://git.io/Jf6IA.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Deep Learning Based Concurrency Bug Detection and Localization

    cs.SE 2025-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Convul combines CodeBERT, RGCN, and SubgraphX on a new Concurrency-Aware Code Property Graph, reporting detection F1 of 86% and localization IoU of 15% on the studied benchmarks.

  2. Mono: Is Your "Clean" Vulnerability Dataset Really Solvable? Exposing and Trapping Undecidable Patches and Beyond

    cs.CR 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Mono reports that 31% of MegaVul patches are non-security and about 16.7% of CVEs are 'undecidable', while its added context raises LLM vulnerability detection F1 by up to 15%.

Pith tools