Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 50 references

An Empirical Study of Vulnerability Detection using Federated Learning

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Federated learning can more than double the F1 score of deep-learning vulnerability detectors compared with isolated training, according to this empirical study.

desk verdict A broad, useful FL-for-vulnerability-detection benchmark whose headline F1 gain needs a fairer baseline; worth refereeing with requests for code and variance. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.16099 v1 pith:6PMK5I2V submitted 2024-11-25 cs.SE cs.AIcs.CR

Peiheng Zhou , Ming Hu , Xingrun Quan , Yawen Peng , Xiaofei Xie , Yanxin Yang , Chengwei Liu , Yueming Wu
show 1 more author
Mingsong Chen
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.SEcs.AIcs.CR
keywords FederatedLearningVulnerabilityDetectionCWEclassificationEmpiricalStudyLargeLanguageModelsParameter-EfficientFine-TuningDataHeterogeneityVulFed
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Software organizations often have too little labeled vulnerability data to train deep-learning detectors, and privacy concerns keep them from sharing code. This paper argues that federated learning (FL)—training a shared model by aggregating model updates from many clients without moving raw code—is an effective remedy. Using their own configurable evaluation framework, VulFed, on the DiverseVul dataset with ten simulated clients, they report that FL raises the average F1 score from 18.33% to 38.82% relative to a single client training independently, with improvements on every CWE category studied and under 5% F1 loss compared with training on all data centrally. They also find per-CWE performance degrades by at most about 15% under non-IID data and identify configuration choices (CodeBERT/OPT, P-Tuning V2/LoRA, FedCross/FedMut/CluSamp) that work best. The authors note the study covers C/C++ code with lightweight models and does not address fine-grained line- or variable-level localization.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is VulFed, a modular evaluation framework that wraps FL around vulnerability detection through four configurable components: a pre-processor (raw source code, code gadgets, SeVCs, CFGs, ASTs), a trainer (LLMs with full-parameter or PEFT schemes, or GNNs), an aggregator (FL algorithms such as FedAvg, FedProx, CluSamp, FedCross, MOON, FedMut), and a client selector. The mechanism that produces the reported gains is the standard FL round: a server distributes the global model, clients fine-tune locally on private shards, and the server averages the updates; the framework exists to make that loop reproducible across model and data types so the authors can attribute performance differences to individual components.

What would settle it

Take the same DiverseVul data, deliberately corrupt a fraction of CWE labels in the client shards (e.g., 10% random mislabeling) or force extreme non-IID splits where each client holds mostly one CWE class, then rerun the RQ1 comparison; if any CWE type's FL F1 falls to or below the isolated-client baseline, the claim that FL significantly improves all CWEs is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Within a simulated ten-client federated setting on the DiverseVul multi-class CWE dataset, the paper's central claim is that federated aggregation of locally trained models yields substantially better vulnerability detection than any client could achieve alone, while staying close to centralized training. Averaged over six lightweight LLMs, the global FL model's F1 score rose from 18.33% for an isolated client to 38.82%, and every investigated CWE type showed a gain; the largest gains (CWE-295 at +63.33 percentage points, CWE-120 at +39.77) occurred for vulnerabilities with simple, localized representations, while complex multi-form CWEs such as CWE-189 and CWE-772 improved least. Under Dirichlet-simulated non-IID data, per-CWE detection rates fell by less than 15% for all CWE types, with overall accuracy loss below 2% and F1 loss below 5%. A second set of experiments maps configuration choices, concluding that among deployable models CodeBERT and OPT lead, P-Tuning V2 and LoRA come closest to full fine-tuning, and FedCross, FedMut, and CluSamp give the best FL-algorithm performance overall.

Load-bearing premise

The results stand on the assumption that slicing DiverseVul into ten same-distribution shards mimics what real organizations hold: correct CWE labels, comparable data quality, and C/C++ code from public projects.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • An organization that cannot access other companies' vulnerability data can still benefit from their models: with FL it can contribute private data and receive a global detector whose per-CWE F1 is roughly double what isolated training achieves.
  • Federated vulnerability detection remains usable when client data distributions diverge: the paper's non-IID results suggest most CWE types lose less than 15% detection rate, so heterogeneity is a cost, not a deal-breaker.
  • Configuring a FL vulnerability detector matters as much as choosing the detector: model, PEFT strategy, and aggregation algorithm each shift F1 by several points, and the best combinations are identifiable without trying every possibility.
  • GNN-based detectors (Devign, Reveal, VDBFL) also improve under FL, so the framework's conclusions are not limited to LLM-based text models.
  • Detection gains are uneven across CWE types; training pipelines should expect hard-to-detect classes to need extra preprocessing, not just more federated data.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial inference: the paper establishes utility, not confidentiality, because no differential-privacy or gradient-leakage measurements are reported; the privacy framing rests on the standard FL assumption that sharing model updates does not reveal code.
  • Editorial inference: the same-distribution shards used in the main comparison are optimistic relative to real deployments; a harder test would seed clients with genuinely different codebases and CWE mixes and check whether the per-CWE gain ordering persists.
  • Editorial inference: the per-CWE improvement ranking suggests a testable hypothesis for future work—that syntactically 'shallow' vulnerability classes gain more from FL—which could be quantified with code-graph complexity measures and used to decide which CWE classes need data augmentation.
  • Editorial inference: extending VulFed to cross-language code and line-level localization, which the paper lists as future work, may not inherit the current gains because token or graph representations do not align across languages without additional transformation.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes VulFed/VulFL, a configurable evaluation framework for federated learning (FL) applied to vulnerability detection, and reports an extensive empirical study on the DiverseVul dataset. The study addresses three research questions: whether FL improves detection over independent training per CWE (RQ1), how FL behaves under non-IID client data (RQ2), and how to select models, parameter-efficient fine-tuning strategies, and FL algorithms (RQ3). The headline result is that FL raises the overall F1 score from 18.33% to 38.82% compared with a single isolated client, with less than 5% F1 loss relative to centralized training. The paper also evaluates six FL algorithms, six LLMs, five PEFT strategies, three GNN models, and several input representations.

Significance. If the central claim were established, the paper would make a useful contribution: it would show that federated aggregation of distributed vulnerability data can produce substantially better per-CWE classifiers than isolated local training, while remaining close to centralized training. The proposed framework is genuinely broad, covering LLMs, GNNs, PEFT schemes, and multiple FL algorithms, and the use of a public dataset (DiverseVul) is a strength. However, the main empirical comparison is currently confounded, and the paper does not provide the uncertainty estimates or alternative baselines needed to support the word 'significantly' in the RQ1 answer. The framework itself and the configuration study are valuable, but the headline finding needs re-analysis before the paper can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 5.1, Table 6, Figure 2] The headline comparison (overall F1 from 18.33% to 38.82%) contrasts the FedAvg global model trained on 10 IID shards against one isolated client trained on a single shard. The FL model therefore sees roughly ten times more training data, so the gain is largely a data-volume effect rather than evidence that federated aggregation specifically helps. Please add a mean-of-ten-independent-clients baseline, a centralized-pooling baseline, per-seed variance, and a significance test over seeds. Also clarify how the 'overall F1' is computed: the per-CWE F1 values in Table 6 do not average to 18.33% or 38.82% when treated as a macro average.
  2. [Section 5.2, Figure 5] In the non-IID experiments, the paper compares FL under IID versus non-IID partitions, but it does not report any independent-training baseline under the same non-IID partitions. Consequently, the conclusion that VulFed 'has strong resistance to data heterogeneity' does not support the broader claim that FL remains preferable to independent training in heterogeneous settings. Please report per-CWE F1 for isolated clients under the same Dirichlet partitions and include statistical comparisons.
  3. [Section 5.3, Tables 7-9] The RQ3 benchmark evaluates and ultimately recommends FedCross and FedMut, which are the authors' own methods from refs [27] and [33], while omitting several established FL algorithms such as SCAFFOLD, FedGEN, and FedNova. This makes the comparative recommendation not fully independent. Please add external baseline algorithms, or clearly separate self-developed methods from third-party methods, and disclose the relationship explicitly in the experimental design.
  4. [Section 7] The paper states that 'Section ?? provides channels for obtaining the data and source code', but this section is missing and no repository link or artifact DOI appears anywhere in the manuscript. Since all conclusions are empirical, the absence of a working availability statement prevents independent verification. Please add a complete data/artifact availability section with a functional link.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract vs. Section 3] The framework is named VulFL in the abstract and VulFed in the introduction and Section 3; please unify the name throughout.
  2. [Section 5.2] The claim that Dirichlet alpha values of 0.3 or 0.1 'do not significantly impact the experimental results based on our multiple verifications' is not supported by any reported results; please provide the corresponding data or temper the claim.
  3. [Section 5.3] The sentence beginning 'In decoder-only LLMs, CodeBERT' appears to be a category error, since BERT and CodeBERT are encoder-only models; please correct the taxonomy.
  4. [Table 2 and Figure 1] Figure 1 lists FedGen among the FL algorithms, but Table 2 and the experiments use FedCross; please reconcile the figure with the actual algorithm set.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central FL-vs-independent-training comparison is an empirical measurement on an external dataset, not a derivation from fitted parameters or self-cited theorems.

full rationale

The paper's central claim (RQ1) is an empirical comparison between a FedAvg global model trained over ten simulated clients and one isolated client model, both trained on the same external DiverseVul dataset. No parameter is fitted to the target result, no equation defines the improvement into existence, and the 'prediction' is a measured F1 delta (18.33% to 38.82%) rather than a quantity forced by construction. The comparison protocol may be criticized on validity grounds (the isolated baseline sees one tenth of the data, so the gain may largely reflect data volume; no mean-local or variance baseline is reported), but that is an experimental-design weakness, not circularity. The only self-citation pattern is that the authors include their own FL algorithms FedCross [27] and FedMut [33] in the RQ3 benchmark and recommend them; however, the reported rankings are produced by the paper's own evaluation runs, not imported from the cited papers, so the self-citations are not load-bearing for any derived claim. No uniqueness theorem, ansatz, or known result is renamed. The paper is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks for its main conclusion, and no specific reduction equating an output to an input can be exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The empirical claims do not involve fitted parameters in the derivation sense, but they depend on hand-set experimental constants and domain assumptions. The most consequential are label quality in DiverseVul, the single-client baseline, and the 10-client simulation. None of these are fitted to a target result, so circularity is low, but they all affect the magnitude and generality of the reported FL improvements.

free parameters (7)
  • Number of FL clients = 10
    All experiments use 10 simulated clients; the reported FL gains depend on this partition size. Section 4.2.
  • Number of FL rounds = 50
    Models are evaluated after 50 rounds of joint fine-tuning; no convergence analysis is reported. Section 4.2.
  • Dirichlet alpha for non-IID partition = 0.5
    Chosen by hand for RQ2; the paper asserts 0.1 and 0.3 give similar results but provides no supporting data. Section 5.2.
  • Local learning rate = 1e-5
    Fixed for all clients and models; no sensitivity analysis is provided. Section 4.2.
  • Client participation ratio = 50%
    Half of clients are selected per round; results for aggregation algorithms could depend on this ratio. Section 4.2.
  • Minimum CWE sample count = 100
    CWE categories with fewer than 100 samples are removed from DiverseVul before evaluation. Section 5.1.
  • Train/test split ratio = 80/20
    Used when a dataset has no preset split; affects test-set composition. Section 4.2.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption DiverseVul CWE labels are accurate and representative.
    Per-CWE claims in RQ1 and RQ2 are computed from these labels, and the paper does not analyze label noise or verify samples. Section 4.2 and Section 5.1.
  • domain assumption Single-label 30-class CWE classification captures vulnerability detection.
    The evaluation treats each sample as one CWE and adds CWE-None, ignoring multi-label or multi-vulnerability code. Section 5.1.
  • domain assumption IID partition of a public dataset into 10 shards simulates real FL clients.
    The comparison of FL versus isolated training assumes the 10-client IID sharding preserves realistic client conditions. Section 5.1.
  • ad hoc to paper Pre-trained LLM weights explain the mild non-IID degradation.
    RQ2 attributes robustness to pre-training, but no ablation removes or varies the pre-trained initialization. Section 5.2.
  • ad hoc to paper CWE complexity (shallower vs complex) determines FL improvement.
    This qualitative hypothesis is inferred from two example pairs and is acknowledged by the authors to be non-quantitative. Section 5.1.
  • domain assumption Gradient sharing preserves client privacy.
    The motivation for FL assumes no raw data leaves clients; gradient inversion attacks are not considered. Section 2.2 and Section 3.1.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of An Empirical Study of Vulnerability Detection using Federated Learning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6PMK5I2V

@misc{pith2026241116099,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: An Empirical Study of Vulnerability Detection using Federated Learning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6PMK5I2V}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.16099}
}
read the original abstract

Although Deep Learning (DL) methods becoming increasingly popular in vulnerability detection, their performance is seriously limited by insufficient training data. This is mainly because few existing software organizations can maintain a complete set of high-quality samples for DL-based vulnerability detection. Due to the concerns about privacy leakage, most of them are reluctant to share data, resulting in the data silo problem. Since enables collaboratively model training without data sharing, Federated Learning (FL) has been investigated as a promising means of addressing the data silo problem in DL-based vulnerability detection. However, since existing FL-based vulnerability detection methods focus on specific applications, it is still far unclear i) how well FL adapts to common vulnerability detection tasks and ii) how to design a high-performance FL solution for a specific vulnerability detection task. To answer these two questions, this paper first proposes VulFL, an effective evaluation framework for FL-based vulnerability detection. Then, based on VulFL, this paper conducts a comprehensive study to reveal the underlying capabilities of FL in dealing with different types of CWEs, especially when facing various data heterogeneity scenarios. Our experimental results show that, compared to independent training, FL can significantly improve the detection performance of common AI models on all investigated CWEs, though the performance of FL-based vulnerability detection is limited by heterogeneous data. To highlight the performance differences between different FL solutions for vulnerability detection, we extensively investigate the impacts of different configuration strategies for each framework component of VulFL. Our study sheds light on the potential of FL in vulnerability detection, which can be used to guide the design of FL-based solutions for vulnerability detection.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.16099 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Our VulFed Evaluation Framework. 3 OUR EVALUATION FRAMEWORK 3.1 Framework Design To understand the effectiveness of FL for vulnerability detection, according to the study in Section 2, we designed a general and easy-to-extend evaluation framework, named VulFed, which integrates various vulnerability detection methods and FL optimization methods. As shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Performance Comparison between Single and FL Models [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Examples of CWE-295 and CWE-120 provided by the official and in DiverseVul [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Examples of CWE-772, CWE-189 and CWE-264 provided by the official and in the DiverseVul [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Performance Comparison between IID and non-IID Situations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages

  1. [27]

    Fedcross: Towards accurate federated learning via multi-model cross-aggregation,

    M. Hu, P. Zhou, Z. Yue, Z. Ling, Y. Huang, A. Li, Y. Liu, X. Lian, and M. Chen, “Fedcross: Towards accurate federated learning via multi-model cross-aggregation, ” inIEEE International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE) . IEEE, 2024, pp. 2137–2150

    work page 2024

  2. [33]

    FedMut: Generalized federated learning via stochastic mutation,

    M. Hu, Y. Cao, A. Li, Z. Li, C. Liu, T. Li, M. Chen, and Y. Liu, “FedMut: Generalized federated learning via stochastic mutation, ” inProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI) , 2024, pp. 12 528–12 537

    work page 2024

  3. [1]

    Reef: A framework for collecting real- world vulnerabilities and fixes,

    C. Wang, Z. Li, Y. Peng, S. Gao, S. Chen, S. Wang, C. Gao, and M. Lyu, “Reef: A framework for collecting real- world vulnerabilities and fixes, ” inProc. of the International Conf. on Automated Software Engineering (ASE) , 2023, pp. 1952–1962

    work page 2023

  4. [2]

    Learning to locate and describe vulnerabilities,

    J. Zhang, S. Liu, X. Wang, T. Li, and Y. Liu, “Learning to locate and describe vulnerabilities, ” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE) , 2023, pp. 345–357

    work page 2023

  5. [3]

    Toward improved deep learning-based vulnerability detection,

    A. Sejfia, S. Das, S. Shafiq, and N. Medvidovic, “Toward improved deep learning-based vulnerability detection, ” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE) , 2023, pp. 62:1–62:12

    work page 2023

  6. [4]

    Sysevr: A framework for using deep learning to detect software vulnerabilities,

    Z. Li, D. Zou, S. Xu, H. Jin, Y. Zhu, and Z. Chen, “Sysevr: A framework for using deep learning to detect software vulnerabilities, ”IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing (TDSC) , pp. 2244–2258, 2022

    work page 2022

  7. [5]

    Vuldeepecker: A deep learning-based system for vulnerability detection,

    Z. Li, D. Zou, S. Xu, X. Ou, H. Jin, S. Wang, Z. Deng, and Y. Zhong, “Vuldeepecker: A deep learning-based system for vulnerability detection, ” inProceedings of the Annual Network and Distributed System Security Symposium (NDSS) , 2018

    work page 2018

  8. [6]

    Vulchecker: Graph-based vulnerability localization in source code,

    Y. Mirsky, G. Macon, M. D. Brown, C. Yagemann, M. Pruett, E. Downing, S. Mertoguno, and W. Lee, “Vulchecker: Graph-based vulnerability localization in source code, ” inProceedings of the USENIX Security Symposium , 2023, pp. 6557–6574

    work page 2023

Show all 50 references
  1. [7]

    Vuldeelocator: A deep learning-based fine-grained vulnerability detector,

    Z. Li, D. Zou, S. Xu, Z. Chen, Y. Zhu, and H. Jin, “Vuldeelocator: A deep learning-based fine-grained vulnerability detector, ”IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing (TDSC) , pp. 2821–2837, 2022

    2022

  2. [8]

    Devign: Effective vulnerability identification by learning comprehensive program semantics via graph neural networks,

    Y. Zhou, S. Liu, J. K. Siow, X. Du, and Y. Liu, “Devign: Effective vulnerability identification by learning comprehensive program semantics via graph neural networks, ” inProceedings of the Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 2019, pp. 10 197–10 207

    2019

  3. [9]

    Deep learning based vulnerability detection: Are we there yet?

    S. Chakraborty, R. Krishna, Y. Ding, and B. Ray, “Deep learning based vulnerability detection: Are we there yet?” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering , pp. 3280–3296, 2022

    2022

  4. [10]

    Coca: Improving and explaining graph neural network-based vulnerability detection systems,

    S. Cao, X. Sun, X. W. Wu, D. Lo, L. Bo, B. Li, and W. Liu, “Coca: Improving and explaining graph neural network-based vulnerability detection systems, ” inProceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE) , 2023, pp. 155:1–155:13

    2023

  5. [11]

    Dataflow analysis-inspired deep learning for efficient vulnerability detection,

    B. Steenhoek, H. Gao, and W. Le, “Dataflow analysis-inspired deep learning for efficient vulnerability detection, ” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE) , 2023, pp. 16:1–16:13

    2023

  6. [12]

    Reentrancy vulnerability detection and localization: A deep learning based two-phase approach,

    Z. Zhang, Y. Lei, M. Yan, Y. Yu, J. Chen, S. Wang, and X. Mao, “Reentrancy vulnerability detection and localization: A deep learning based two-phase approach, ” inProceedings of the International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE), 2022, pp. 83:1–83:13

    2022

  7. [13]

    Communication-efficient learning of deep networks from decentralized data,

    B. McMahan, E. Moore, D. Ramage, S. Hampson, and B. A. y Arcas, “Communication-efficient learning of deep networks from decentralized data, ” inProceedings of the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics (AISTATS) , 2017, pp. 1273–1282

    2017

  8. [14]

    Is aggregation the only choice? federated learning via layer-wise model recombination,

    M. Hu, Z. Yue, X. Xie, C. Chen, Y. Huang, X. Wei, X. Lian, Y. Liu, and M. Chen, “Is aggregation the only choice? federated learning via layer-wise model recombination, ” inIn Proceedings of SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD), 2024, pp. 1096–1107

    2024

  9. [15]

    Federated optimization in heterogeneous networks,

    T. Li, A. K. Sahu, M. Zaheer, M. Sanjabi, A. Talwalkar, and V. Smith, “Federated optimization in heterogeneous networks, ” in Proceedings of the Conference on Machine Learning and Systems (MLSys) , 2020

    2020

  10. [16]

    Federated learning for generalization, robustness, fairness: A survey and benchmark,

    W. Huang, M. Ye, Z. Shi, G. Wan, H. Li, B. Du, and Q. Yang, “Federated learning for generalization, robustness, fairness: A survey and benchmark, ”arXiv:2311.06750, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  11. [17]

    Gitfl: Uncertainty-aware real-time asynchronous federated learning using version control,

    M. Hu, Z. Xia, D. Yan, Z. Yue, J. Xia, Y. Huang, Y. Liu, and M. Chen, “Gitfl: Uncertainty-aware real-time asynchronous federated learning using version control, ” inProceedings of the IEEE Real-Time Systems Symposium (RTSS) , 2023, pp. 145–157

    2023

  12. [18]

    Vulnerability detection based on federated learning,

    C. Zhang, T. Yu, B. Liu, and Y. Xin, “Vulnerability detection based on federated learning, ” Information & Software Technology, p. 107371, 2024

    2024

  13. [19]

    SCAFFOLD: Stochastic controlled averaging for federated learning,

    S. P. Karimireddy, S. Kale, M. Mohri, S. Reddi, S. Stich, and A. T. Suresh, “SCAFFOLD: Stochastic controlled averaging for federated learning, ” inProceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML) , 2020, pp. 5132–5143

    2020

  14. [20]

    Diversevul: A new vulnerable source code dataset for deep learning based vulnerability detection,

    Y. Chen, Z. Ding, L. Alowain, X. Chen, and D. A. Wagner, “Diversevul: A new vulnerable source code dataset for deep learning based vulnerability detection, ” inProceedings of the International Symposium on Research in Attacks, Intrusions and Defenses (RAID), 2023, pp. 654–668

    2023

  15. [22]

    μvuldeepecker: A deep learning-based system for multiclass vulnerability detection,

    D. Zou, S. Wang, S. Xu, Z. Li, and H. Jin, “μvuldeepecker: A deep learning-based system for multiclass vulnerability detection, ”IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing (TDSC) , pp. 2224–2236, 2019

    2019

  16. [23]

    VUDENC: vulnerability detection with deep learning on a natural codebase for python,

    L. Wartschinski, Y. Noller, T. Vogel, T. Kehrer, and L. Grunske, “VUDENC: vulnerability detection with deep learning on a natural codebase for python, ”Information & Software Technology, p. 106809, 2022. 20 An Empirical Study of Vulnerability Detection using Federated Learning...

    2022

  17. [24]

    Vuldebert: A vulnerability detection system using BERT,

    S. Kim, J. Choi, M. E. Ahmed, S. Nepal, and H. Kim, “Vuldebert: A vulnerability detection system using BERT, ” in Proceedings of the International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering (ISSRE) Workshops , 2022, pp. 69–74

    2022

  18. [25]

    Software vulnerability detection with gpt and in-context learning,

    Z. Liu, Q. Liao, W. Gu, and C. Gao, “Software vulnerability detection with gpt and in-context learning, ” inProceedings of the International Conference on Data Science in Cyberspace (DSC) , 2023, pp. 229–236

    2023

  19. [26]

    Transformer-based language models for software vulnerability detection,

    C. Thapa, S. I. Jang, M. E. Ahmed, S. Camtepe, J. Pieprzyk, and S. Nepal, “Transformer-based language models for software vulnerability detection, ” inProceedings of the Annual Computer Security Applications Conference (ACSAC) , 2022, pp. 481–496

    2022

  20. [28]

    Clustered sampling: Low-variance and improved representativity for clients selection in federated learning,

    Y. Fraboni, R. Vidal, L. Kameni, and M. Lorenzi, “Clustered sampling: Low-variance and improved representativity for clients selection in federated learning, ” inProceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML) , 2021, pp. 3407–3416

    2021

  21. [29]

    Federated learning with soft clustering,

    C. Li, G. Li, and P. K. Varshney, “Federated learning with soft clustering, ”IEEE Internet of Things Journal , vol. 9, no. 10, pp. 7773–7782, 2021

    2021

  22. [30]

    Data-free knowledge distillation for heterogeneous federated learning,

    Z. Zhu, J. Hong, and J. Zhou, “Data-free knowledge distillation for heterogeneous federated learning, ” inInternational Conference on Machine Learning (ICML) , 2021, pp. 12 878–12 889

    2021

  23. [31]

    Fine-tuning global model via data-free knowledge distillation for non-iid federated learning,

    L. Zhang, L. Shen, L. Ding, D. Tao, and L.-Y. Duan, “Fine-tuning global model via data-free knowledge distillation for non-iid federated learning, ” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2022, pp. 10 174–10 183

    2022

  24. [32]

    FedMR: Federated learning via model recombination,

    M. Hu, Z. Yue, Z. Ling, Y. Huang, C. Chen, X. Wei, Y. Liu, and M. Chen, “FedMR: Federated learning via model recombination, ”arXiv:2305.10730, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  25. [34]

    Flexfl: Heterogeneous federated learning via apoz-guided flexible pruning in uncertain scenarios,

    Z. Chen, C. Jia, M. Hu, X. Xie, A. Li, and M. Chen, “Flexfl: Heterogeneous federated learning via apoz-guided flexible pruning in uncertain scenarios, ”IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems , vol. 43, no. 11, pp. 4069–4080, 2024

    2024

  26. [35]

    Adaptivefl: Adaptive heterogeneous federated learning for resource-constrained aiot systems,

    C. Jia, M. Hu, Z. Chen, Y. Yang, X. Xie, Y. Liu, and M. Chen, “Adaptivefl: Adaptive heterogeneous federated learning for resource-constrained aiot systems, ” inProceedings of the ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference , 2024, pp. 1–6

    2024

  27. [36]

    End-to-end federated learning for autonomous driving vehicles,

    H. Zhang, J. Bosch, and H. H. Olsson, “End-to-end federated learning for autonomous driving vehicles, ” in 2021 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN) . IEEE, 2021, pp. 1–8

    2021

  28. [37]

    Federated learning for healthcare informatics,

    J. Xu, B. S. Glicksberg, C. Su, P. Walker, J. Bian, and F. Wang, “Federated learning for healthcare informatics, ”Journal of healthcare informatics research , vol. 5, pp. 1–19, 2021

    2021

  29. [38]

    BERT: pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding,

    J. Devlin, M. Chang, K. Lee, and K. Toutanova, “BERT: pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding, ” inProceedings of the Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (NAAC...

    2019

  30. [39]

    Improving language understanding by generative pre- training,

    A. Radford, K. Narasimhan, T. Salimans, I. Sutskever et al., “Improving language understanding by generative pre- training, ” 2018

    2018

  31. [40]

    OPT-IML: scaling language model instruction meta learning through the lens of generalization,

    S. Iyer, X. V. Lin, R. Pasunuru, T. Mihaylov, D. Simig, P. Yu, K. Shuster, T. Wang, Q. Liu, P. S. Koura, X. Li, B. O’Horo, G. Pereyra, J. Wang, C. Dewan, A. Celikyilmaz, L. Zettlemoyer, and V. Stoyanov, “OPT-IML: scaling language model instruction meta learning through the len...

    2022 arXiv

  32. [41]

    Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer,

    C. Raffel, N. Shazeer, A. Roberts, K. Lee, S. Narang, M. Matena, Y. Zhou, W. Li, and P. J. Liu, “Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer, ”Journal of Machine Learning Research (JMLR), pp. 140:1–140:67, 2020

    2020

  33. [42]

    Codet5: Identifier-aware unified pre-trained encoder-decoder models for code understanding and generation,

    Y. Wang, W. Wang, S. R. Joty, and S. C. H. Hoi, “Codet5: Identifier-aware unified pre-trained encoder-decoder models for code understanding and generation, ” inProceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), 2021, pp. 8696–8708

    2021

  34. [43]

    Scaling down to scale up: A guide to parameter-efficient fine-tuning,

    V. Lialin, V. Deshpande, and A. Rumshisky, “Scaling down to scale up: A guide to parameter-efficient fine-tuning, ” arXiv:2303.15647, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  35. [44]

    GPT understands, too,

    X. Liu, Y. Zheng, Z. Du, M. Ding, Y. Qian, Z. Yang, and J. Tang, “GPT understands, too, ”arXiv:2103.10385, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  36. [45]

    P-Tuning v2: Prompt tuning can be comparable to fine-tuning universally across scales and tasks,

    X. Liu, K. Ji, Y. Fu, Z. Du, Z. Yang, and J. Tang, “P-Tuning v2: Prompt tuning can be comparable to fine-tuning universally across scales and tasks, ”arXiv:2110.07602, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  37. [46]

    LoRA: Low-rank adaptation of large language models,

    E. J. Hu, Y. Shen, P. Wallis, Z. Allen-Zhu, Y. Li, S. Wang, L. Wang, and W. Chen, “LoRA: Low-rank adaptation of large language models, ” inProceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) , 2022

    2022

  38. [47]

    Fedpara: Low-rank hadamard product for communication-efficient federated learning,

    N. Hyeon-Woo, M. Ye-Bin, and T.-H. Oh, “Fedpara: Low-rank hadamard product for communication-efficient federated learning, ”arXiv:2108.06098, 2021. 21 Preprint, Preprint,Peiheng Zhou, Ming Hu, Xingrun Quan, Yawen Peng, Xiaofei Xie, Yanxin Yang, Chengwei Liu, Yueming Wu, and Mi...

    2021 arXiv

  39. [48]

    Few-shot parameter-efficient fine-tuning is better and cheaper than in-context learning,

    H. Liu, D. Tam, M. Muqeeth, J. Mohta, T. Huang, M. Bansal, and C. Raffel, “Few-shot parameter-efficient fine-tuning is better and cheaper than in-context learning, ” inProceedings of the Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 2022

    2022

  40. [49]

    Model-contrastive federated learning,

    Q. Li, B. He, and D. Song, “Model-contrastive federated learning, ” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , 2021, pp. 10 713–10 722

    2021

  41. [50]

    Measuring the effects of non-identical data distribution for federated visual classifica- tion,

    T. H. Hsu, H. Qi, and M. Brown, “Measuring the effects of non-identical data distribution for federated visual classifica- tion, ”arXiv:1909.06335, 2019

    1909 arXiv

  42. [51]

    Language models are unsupervised multitask learners,

    A. Radford, J. Wu, R. Child, D. Luan, D. Amodei, I. Sutskever et al., “Language models are unsupervised multitask learners, ”OpenAI blog, p. 9, 2019. 22

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.