REVIEW 1 cited by
Data Quality Issues in Vulnerability Detection Datasets
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
Signed reviews
read the original abstract
Vulnerability detection is a crucial yet challenging task to identify potential weaknesses in software for cyber security. Recently, deep learning (DL) has made great progress in automating the detection process. Due to the complex multi-layer structure and a large number of parameters, a DL model requires massive labeled (vulnerable or secure) source code to gain knowledge to effectively distinguish between vulnerable and secure code. In the literature, many datasets have been created to train DL models for this purpose. However, these datasets suffer from several issues that will lead to low detection accuracy of DL models. In this paper, we define three critical issues (i.e., data imbalance, low vulnerability coverage, biased vulnerability distribution) that can significantly affect the model performance and three secondary issues (i.e., errors in source code, mislabeling, noisy historical data) that also affect the performance but can be addressed through a dedicated pre-processing procedure. In addition, we conduct a study of 14 papers along with 54 datasets for vulnerability detection to confirm these defined issues. Furthermore, we discuss good practices to use existing datasets and to create new ones.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Mono: Is Your "Clean" Vulnerability Dataset Really Solvable? Exposing and Trapping Undecidable Patches and Beyond
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%.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.