Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 178 references

AI-Based Software Vulnerability Detection: A Systematic Literature Review

T0 review · 5 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A systematic review of 98 papers maps AI-based code vulnerability detection across techniques, representations, and embeddings, and finds graph-based deep learning dominant.

desk verdict A useful three-dimensional taxonomy and dataset catalog, but the prevalence statistics are not internally consistent and need correction before the review can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.10280 v1 pith:XD5EET44 submitted 2025-06-12 cs.SE cs.CR

Samiha Shimmi , Hamed Okhravi , Mona Rahimi This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.SEcs.CR
keywords SoftwarevulnerabilitydetectionAI-basedSource-codeSystematicliteraturereviewDeeplearningGraphneuralnetworksFeaturerepresentationdatasets
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

This paper claims to give a systematic map of AI-based source-code vulnerability detection research from 2018 to 2023, built from 98 papers selected through a structured review protocol. The map is a three-dimensional taxonomy: what kind of model is used, how code is represented as features, and how those features become embeddings. The headline counts are that 91% of the reviewed studies use AI-based methods and over 96% use deep learning, with graph-based models the most common technique and graph/tree representations the dominant feature form. A sympathetic reader would care because the taxonomy converts a scattered literature into a checkable inventory of methods, datasets, and open gaps, including fine-grained detection, non-C/C++ languages, and reproducibility.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the taxonomy in the paper's Figure 4, which classifies each reviewed paper once per axis. The technique axis separates sequential models (BiLSTM leading with 19 papers), graph-based models (basic GNN leading with 13), transformer-based models (BERT leading with 4), CNNs (basic CNN with 13), and a residual 'other' class. The feature-representation axis separates graph/tree forms such as AST (26 papers), PDG (23), and CPG (13) from token/text forms such as code gadgets and code slices, and from intermediate representations such as LLVM IR (4 papers total). The embedding axis separates text-based methods (Word2Vec, 44 papers), BERT-based methods (CodeBERT, 8), graph-based methods (node2vec, 2), and other methods. This three-way classification is what turns 98 heterogeneous papers into the prevalence counts and trend charts that carry the paper's conclusions.

What would settle it

Re-run the same search in an additional bibliographic database, screen the extra hits with the paper's own inclusion and exclusion rules, and recount the corpus; if the final paper count, the 94-out-of-98 deep-learning share, or the graph-based prevalence numbers shift by more than a few percentage points, the review's central statistics depend on the search rather than the field.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a structured review of 98 papers yields a reliable three-dimensional taxonomy of AI-based vulnerability detection in source code. The first axis classifies detection technique into sequential, graph-based, transformer-based, CNN, and other; the second classifies feature representation into graph/tree forms, token/text forms, and intermediate representations; the third classifies embeddings into text-based, BERT-based, graph-based, and other. The same paper set is also characterized along dataset use, granularity, programming language, and detection objective. The prevalence findings are that deep learning dominates (over 96% of the 98 papers), graph-based models are the most used technique, graph/tree representations appear in 70 papers, and Word2Vec appears in 44 papers as the most common embedding. Alongside the taxonomy, the review documents 27 datasets, identifying eight reused ones, and reports limitations in dataset quality, reproducibility, and interpretability.

Load-bearing premise

The whole map rests on the assumption that the 98 papers gathered with two keyword phrases and screened by titles, abstracts, and introductions are the complete and unbiased set of relevant 2018–2023 work, so that every percentage and taxonomy branch reflects the field rather than the selection.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A newcomer can use the taxonomy to locate the crowded cells (graph-based feature extraction, C/C++ function-level classification) and the nearly empty ones (intermediate representations with 4 papers, fine-grained detection with 3 papers).
  • Future work can treat graph-based deep learning plus Word2Vec or BERT embeddings as the default baseline configuration to beat, since these are the field's dominant choices.
  • Dataset developers can target what the corpus lacks: non-C/C++ languages, statement-level labels, and fresh real-world samples, given that 16 of the 27 datasets are C/C++ and function-level data dominates.
  • The limitation analysis points to reproducibility, label accuracy, and data uniqueness as the binding constraints, and marks federated learning and quantum neural networks as essentially unopened directions, each appearing in only one reviewed study.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the taxonomy's main long-term value may be as a shared reporting vocabulary, so that future papers state which cell they occupy; the paper itself proposes the taxonomy but does not enforce any such convention.
  • Editorial inference: the abstract's 91% AI-based share and the conclusion's over-96% deep-learning share are different definitions, and readers should attach each statistic to its definition rather than treat them as interchangeable.
  • Editorial inference: applying the same three axes to 2024–2025 papers would test whether the graph-based dominance the review documents is already giving way to transformer and LLM-based methods, which the paper's own trend lines suggest as the next shift.
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

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a PRISMA-guided systematic literature review of AI-based software vulnerability detection in source code, covering 98 papers published between 2018 and 2023. It proposes a three-dimensional taxonomy along detection technique, feature representation, and embedding method, and it characterizes the reviewed studies in terms of datasets, programming languages, granularity, detection objective, and data/model availability. The central prevalence claims are that most reviewed studies use AI/DL techniques, that graph-based models are the most common technique, that graph/tree-based feature representations dominate, and that graph-based embeddings are the most common embedding strategy; the paper also identifies dataset quality, reproducibility, interpretability, and granularity as limitations and points to federated learning and quantum neural networks as underexplored directions.

Significance. If the numerical inconsistencies are corrected and the underlying coding is made available, the paper would provide a useful structured map of a rapidly moving research area. Its strengths are the explicit PRISMA-style search protocol, the documented initial corpus and exclusion statistics, the three-axis taxonomy, the systematic dataset characterization (27 datasets), and the discussion of data quality and reproducibility concerns. However, the review is not currently reproducible from its own text: several load-bearing counts disagree across the abstract, the body, the tables, and the PRISMA flow diagram, and no coding sheet is provided to independently verify the aggregate classifications. These issues are local and fixable in principle, but they must be resolved before the prevalence findings can be trusted.

major comments (5)
  1. [Abstract vs. Section 6 and Figure 3(c)] The abstract's claim that '91% of studies use AI-based methods' is not supported by the body. Section 6 states that 94 of 98 papers (96%) used deep learning and 4 papers used ML, which implies that 98/98, i.e., 100%, are AI-based. The number 91 in Figure 3(c) is the count of papers targeting C/C++, not the percentage of AI-based studies. Please correct the abstract and ensure each percentage is computed from a clearly identified denominator.
  2. [Section 8 and Table 6] The conclusion that graph-based techniques are 'the most commonly used for both feature extraction and embedding generation' is contradicted by Table 6, which reports 73 text-based embedding papers versus only 7 graph-based embedding papers. The graph-based dominance claim is consistent with Table 5 for feature representation (70 graph/tree-based vs. 23 text-based), but it does not hold for embeddings; Section 8 should be revised to distinguish the two dimensions.
  3. [Figure 1 and Section 3 / Table 2] The PRISMA flow diagram reports 108 papers in the final box after excluding 541 from 649, while Section 3 and Table 2 state that the final set contains 98 papers. Since 649 minus 541 equals 108, the text and the figure disagree by 10 papers. This discrepancy must be reconciled because the corpus size is the denominator for every prevalence statistic in the paper.
  4. [Table 4 and Section 6.2.1] The category counts in Table 4 sum to 108 (26 + 34 + 14 + 17 + 17) even though Section 6 states that only 94 papers used DL techniques; while multi-label coding can explain why the sum exceeds 94, the prose also disagrees with the table on individual categories, reporting '25 studies employed sequential models' and '35 papers employed graph-based approaches' where Table 4 lists 26 and 34. Please provide the coding sheet or a reconciliation table showing how each paper is assigned across the five categories.
  5. [Section 3 (Methodology)] The search protocol is not reported in sufficient detail to be reproducible: there is no search date, no database-specific query string beyond the keywords, no screening instrument or coding form, and no list of excluded papers. Because the completeness and representativeness of the 98-paper corpus is the load-bearing premise for the taxonomy and all prevalence findings, the protocol should be specified to the level of detail expected from a systematic review.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 6.2.3] The text says 'Figure 5 shows the year-wise distribution of embedding techniques' and 'Figure 5 illustrates that BERT-based models were first introduced', but the correct figure for embeddings is Figure 7; the figure cross-references need to be corrected throughout Section 6.2.3.
  2. [Section 6.2.2] The paragraph following the graph-based representation list repeats nearly the same sentence twice: 'Among these models, AST is the most widely adopted, appearing in 26 studies' and 'Among these, the Abstract Syntax Tree (AST) is the most widely adopted model, appearing in 26 papers'. One of the two statements should be removed.
  3. [Table 3] The entry for Cao et al. [19] states that the dataset 'Contains 3867 vulnerable and 92,058 vulnerable functions'; the second occurrence of 'vulnerable' should presumably be 'non-vulnerable'.
  4. [Throughout] There are several typographical and grammatical errors that should be corrected in a revision, including 'thid section' in Section 7, 'Datset Issues' in Section 7.1, and 'bassic categorization' in Table 1.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

A tautological 91% AI-based headline statistic, but the taxonomy derivation itself is corpus-grounded and self-contained.

  1. self definitional [Abstract; Section 1 (scope) and Section 3 (exclusion criteria)]
    "Our analysis reveals that 91% of studies use AI-based methods ... analyzing 98 recent papers published between 2018 and 2023 focused on AI-based source code vulnerability detection ... the one those addressed SVD using conventional approaches rather than DL or ML."

    By the paper's own inclusion design, the reviewed corpus is definitionally AI-based: Section 3 excludes papers that 'addressed SVD using conventional approaches rather than DL or ML.' Consequently, the share of AI-based studies in the corpus is 100% by construction, and the abstract's '91% of studies use AI-based methods' cannot be an empirical derivation from the corpus; it is either a tautology or a mislabeled copy of the C/C++ language percentage in Figure 3(c). Section 6's own count (94 DL + 4 ML = 98) confirms this. The incident is confined to a headline statistic; the three-dimensional taxonomy is obtained by manual classification of the 98 papers and is not derived from this statistic.

full rationale

The paper is a systematic review, not a quantitative derivation. Its central output—the technique/feature-representation/embedding taxonomy—is built by classifying the 98 included papers; there are no fitted parameters, equations, or predictions to reduce. The only self-citation ([124], for a dataset-quality remark) is non-load-bearing. The numeric inconsistencies noted by the reader (PRISMA 108 vs 98; Table 6 text-based 73 vs the conclusion's 'graph-based ... embedding generation'; Table 4 sums) are internal correctness and reproducibility defects, not circular derivations. The one definitional circularity is the abstract's 91% AI-based claim, which either restates the inclusion criterion or confuses it with the language pie chart; this does not infect the taxonomy or the other prevalence findings. Overall, no significant circularity in the derivation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

This review introduces no numeric free parameters and no invented entities. Its central claims rest on three assumptions about corpus completeness, the accuracy of primary-paper reporting, and consistent execution of the PRISMA screening process; the unexplained 108-to-98 drop makes the third assumption load-bearing.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The search-and-screen procedure is complete enough to represent the relevant literature.
    Section 3 stops searching based on titles and screens only abstracts and introductions, with no search logs or inter-rater protocol, so the prevalence percentages depend on this premise.
  • domain assumption The 98 primary papers accurately report their models, representations, and datasets.
    The taxonomy and figures in Sections 5 and 6 are coded from paper text; no experiments are rerun and no coding uncertainty is quantified.
  • ad hoc to paper PRISMA eligibility rules were applied consistently despite the reported 108-to-98 discrepancy.
    Figure 1 reports 108 papers after the exclusion filter while the final set is 98; the reader must assume an undocumented eligibility step to reconcile the flow.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of AI-Based Software Vulnerability Detection: A Systematic Literature Review." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XD5EET44

@misc{pith2026250610280,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: AI-Based Software Vulnerability Detection: A Systematic Literature Review},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XD5EET44}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.10280}
}
read the original abstract

Software vulnerabilities in source code pose serious cybersecurity risks, prompting a shift from traditional detection methods (e.g., static analysis, rule-based matching) to AI-driven approaches. This study presents a systematic review of software vulnerability detection (SVD) research from 2018 to 2023, offering a comprehensive taxonomy of techniques, feature representations, and embedding methods. Our analysis reveals that 91% of studies use AI-based methods, with graph-based models being the most prevalent. We identify key limitations, including dataset quality, reproducibility, and interpretability, and highlight emerging opportunities in underexplored techniques such as federated learning and quantum neural networks, providing a roadmap for future research.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.10280 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Basic workflow of the proposed approach based on PRISMA method [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Year-wise distribution of all Papers 4 DATASETS In this section, we address RQ1 by documenting reused datasets identified in the papers we studied. By reused datasets, we refer to those that have been employed in more than one paper. Datasets used only once by their original authors and those not made publicly available were excluded from our analysis. While we have not listed the excluded datasets here due to space… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Characteristics of source code-based classification approaches [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Taxonomy of source code-based vulnerability detection methods. Each colored rectangle contains [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Year-wise distribution of the techniques of papers for DL-based detection [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Year-wise distribution of feature representation techniques in DL-based papers [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Year-wise distribution of the embedding techniques used in DL-based papers [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

178 extracted references · 67 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    [n. d.]. CVE Details. https://www.cvedetails.com/

  2. [2]

    Vulnerable Code Database

    2004. Vulnerable Code Database. https://www.vulncode-db.com/. Accessed: 2021-06-04

    2004

  3. [3]

    Sharmin Afrose, Ya Xiao, Sazzadur Rahaman, Barton P Miller, and Danfeng Yao. 2022. Evaluation of static vulnerability detection tools with Java cryptographic API benchmarks. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 49, 2 (2022), 485–497

    2022

  4. [4]

    Junaid Akram and Ping Luo. 2021. SQVDT: A scalable quantitative vulnerability detection technique for source code security assessment. Software: Practice and Experience 51, 2 (2021), 294–318

    2021

  5. [5]

    Mst Shapna Akter, Md Jobair Hossain Faruk, Nafisa Anjum, Mohammad Masum, Hossain Shahriar, Nazmus Sakib, Akond Rahman, Fan Wu, and Alfredo Cuzzocrea. 2022. Software Supply Chain Vulnerabilities Detection in Source Code: Performance Comparison between Traditional and Quantum Machine Learning Algorithms. In 2022 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Bi...

    arXiv 2022

  6. [6]

    Fahad Al Debeyan, Tracy Hall, and David Bowes. 2022. Improving the performance of code vulnerability prediction using abstract syntax tree information. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Predictive Models and Data Analytics in Software Engineering. 2–11

    2022

  7. [7]

    Riccardo Albertoni, Sara Colantonio, Piotr Skrzypczyński, and Jerzy Stefanowski. 2023. Reproducibility of machine learning: Terminol- ogy, recommendations and open issues. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.12691 (2023)

    arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    Mamdouh Alenezi, Mohammed Zagane, and Yasir Javed. 2021. Efficient deep features learning for vulnerability detection using character n-gram embedding. Jordanian Journal of Computers and Information Technology (JJCIT) 7, 01 (2021)

    2021

Show all 178 references
  1. [9]

    Ibrahim Alrashdi, Ali Alqazzaz, Esam Aloufi, Raed Alharthi, Mohamed Zohdy, and Hua Ming. 2019. Ad-iot: Anomaly detection of iot cyberattacks in smart city using machine learning. In 2019 IEEE 9th Annual Computing and Communication Workshop and Conference (CCWC). IEEE, 0305–0310

    2019

  2. [10]

    Henrique Alves, Baldoino Fonseca, and Nuno Antunes. 2016. Software metrics and security vulnerabilities: dataset and exploratory study. In 2016 12th European Dependable Computing Conference (EDCC) . IEEE, 37–44

    2016

  3. [11]

    Moses Aprofin Ashawa and Sarah Morris. 2019. Analysis of android malware detection techniques: a systematic review. (2019)

    2019

  4. [12]

    Collin Beaudoin, Satwik Kundu, Rasit Onur Topaloglu, and Swaroop Ghosh. 2022. Quantum machine learning for material synthesis and hardware security. In Proceedings of the 41st IEEE/ACM International Conference on Computer-Aided Design . 1–7

    2022

  5. [13]

    Guru Bhandari, Amara Naseer, and Leon Moonen. 2021. CVEfixes: automated collection of vulnerabilities and their fixes from open- source software. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Predictive Models and Data Analytics in Software Engineering . 30–39

    2021

  6. [14]

    Zeki Bilgin, Mehmet Akif Ersoy, Elif Ustundag Soykan, Emrah Tomur, Pinar Çomak, and Leyli Karaçay. 2020. Vulnerability prediction from source code using machine learning. IEEE Access 8 (2020), 150672–150684

    2020

  7. [15]

    Benjamin Bowman and H Howie Huang. 2020. VGRAPH: A robust vulnerable code clone detection system using code property triplets. In 2020 IEEE European Symposium on Security and Privacy (EuroS&P) . IEEE, 53–69

    2020

  8. [16]

    Tom B Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33 (2020), 1877–1901

    2020

  9. [17]

    Wenjing Cai, Junlin Chen, Jiaping Yu, and Lipeng Gao. 2023. A software vulnerability detection method based on deep learning with complex network analysis and subgraph partition. Information and Software Technology 164 (2023), 107328

    2023

  10. [18]

    Defu Cao, Jing Huang, Xuanyu Zhang, and Xianhua Liu. 2020. FTCLNet: Convolutional LSTM with Fourier transform for vulnerability detection. In 2020 IEEE 19th International Conference on Trust, Security and Privacy in Computing and Communications (TrustCom) . IEEE, 539–546. 30 S...

    2020

  11. [19]

    Sicong Cao, Xiaobing Sun, Lili Bo, Ying Wei, and Bin Li. 2021. Bgnn4vd: Constructing bidirectional graph neural-network for vulnerability detection. Information and Software Technology 136 (2021), 106576

    2021

  12. [20]

    Sicong Cao, Xiaobing Sun, Lili Bo, Rongxin Wu, Bin Li, and Chuanqi Tao. 2022. MVD: memory-related vulnerability detection based on flow-sensitive graph neural networks. In Proceedings of the 44th International Conference on Software Engineering . 1456–1468

    2022

  13. [21]

    Saikat Chakraborty, Rahul Krishna, Yangruibo Ding, and Baishakhi Ray. 2021. Deep learning based vulnerability detection: Are we there yet. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering (2021)

    2021

  14. [22]

    Saikat Chakraborty, Rahul Krishna, Yangruibo Ding, and Baishakhi Ray. 2022. Deep Learning Based Vulnerability Detection: Are We There Yet? IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 48, 9 (2022), 3280–3296. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSE.2021.3087402

    2022

  15. [23]

    Jiaqi Chang, Zhujuan Ma, Binghao Cao, and Erzhou Zhu. 2023. VDDA: An Effective Software Vulnerability Detection Model Based on Deep Learning and Attention Mechanism. In 2023 26th International Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work in Design (CSCWD). IEEE, 474–479

    2023

  16. [24]

    Yizheng Chen, Zhoujie Ding, Lamya Alowain, Xinyun Chen, and David Wagner. 2023. Diversevul: A new vulnerable source code dataset for deep learning based vulnerability detection. In Proceedings of the 26th International Symposium on Research in Attacks, Intrusions and Defenses. 654–668

    2023

  17. [25]

    Yupan Chen and Zhihong Liu. 2022. HLT: A Hierarchical Vulnerability Detection Model Based on Transformer. In2022 4th International Conference on Data Intelligence and Security (ICDIS) . IEEE, 50–54

    2022

  18. [26]

    Ge Cheng, Qifan Luo, and Yun Zhang. [n. d.]. Vulnerability Detection with Feature Fusion and Learnable Edge-Type Embedding Graph Neural Network. A vailable at SSRN 4567888 ([n. d.])

  19. [27]

    Xiao Cheng, Haoyu Wang, Jiayi Hua, Miao Zhang, Guoai Xu, Li Yi, and Yulei Sui. 2019. Static detection of control-flow-related vulnerabilities using graph embedding. In 2019 24th International Conference on Engineering of Complex Computer Systems (ICECCS) . IEEE, 41–50

    2019

  20. [28]

    Xiao Cheng, Guanqin Zhang, Haoyu Wang, and Yulei Sui. 2022. Path-sensitive code embedding via contrastive learning for software vulnerability detection. In Proceedings of the 31st ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis . 519–531

    2022

  21. [29]

    Roland Croft, M Ali Babar, and M Mehdi Kholoosi. 2023. Data quality for software vulnerability datasets. In 2023 IEEE/ACM 45th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE) . IEEE, 121–133

    2023

  22. [30]

    Lei Cui, Zhiyu Hao, Yang Jiao, Haiqiang Fei, and Xiaochun Yun. 2020. Vuldetector: Detecting vulnerabilities using weighted feature graph comparison. IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security 16 (2020), 2004–2017

    2020

  23. [31]

    Hoa Khanh Dam, Truyen Tran, Trang Pham, Shien Wee Ng, John Grundy, and Aditya Ghose. 2018. Automatic feature learning for predicting vulnerable software components. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 47, 1 (2018), 67–85

    2018

  24. [32]

    Wesley De Kraker, Harald Vranken, and Arjen Hommmersom. 2023. GLICE: Combining Graph Neural Networks and Program Slicing to Improve Software Vulnerability Detection. In 2023 IEEE European Symposium on Security and Privacy Workshops (EuroS&PW) . IEEE, 34–41

    2023

  25. [33]

    Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2018. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04805 (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Yue Ding, Qian Wu, Yinzhu Li, Dongdong Wang, and Jiaxin Huang. 2023. Leveraging Deep Learning Models for Cross-function Null Pointer Risks Detection. In 2023 IEEE International Conference On Artificial Intelligence Testing (AITest) . IEEE, 107–113

    2023

  27. [35]

    Yukun Dong, Yeer Tang, Xiaotong Cheng, Yufei Yang, and Shuqi Wang. 2023. SedSVD: Statement-level software vulnerability detection based on Relational Graph Convolutional Network with subgraph embedding. Information and Software Technology 158 (2023), 107168

    2023

  28. [36]

    Gewangzi Du, Liwei Chen, Tongshuai Wu, Xiong Zheng, Ningning Cui, and Gang Shi. 2023. Cross Domain on Snippets: BiLSTM- TextCNN based Vulnerability Detection with Domain Adaptation. In 2023 26th International Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work in Design (CSCWD)....

    2023

  29. [37]

    Qianjin Du, Wei Kun, Xiaohui Kuang, Xiang Li, and Gang Zhao. 2023. Automated Software Vulnerability Detection via Curriculum Learning. In 2023 IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo (ICME) . IEEE, 2855–2860

    2023

  30. [38]

    Xu Duan, Jingzheng Wu, Mengnan Du, Tianyue Luo, Mutian Yang, and Yanjun Wu. 2021. MultiCode: A Unified Code Analysis Framework based on Multi-type and Multi-granularity Semantic Learning. In2021 IEEE International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering Workshops (ISSREW...

    2021

  31. [39]

    Xu Duan, Jingzheng Wu, Shouling Ji, Zhiqing Rui, Tianyue Luo, Mutian Yang, and Yanjun Wu. 2019. VulSniper: Focus Your Attention to Shoot Fine-Grained Vulnerabilities.. In IJCAI. 4665–4671

    2019

  32. [40]

    Adanma Cecilia Eberendu, Valentine Ikechukwu Udegbe, Edmond Onwubiko Ezennorom, Anita Chinonso Ibegbulam, Titus Ifeanyi Chinebu, et al. 2022. A systematic literature review of software vulnerability detection. European Journal of Computer Science and Information Technology 10,...

    2022

  33. [41]

    Jiahao Fan, Yi Li, Shaohua Wang, and Tien N Nguyen. 2020. AC/C++ code vulnerability dataset with code changes and CVE summaries. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Mining Software Repositories . 508–512

    2020

  34. [42]

    Hantao Feng, Xiaotong Fu, Hongyu Sun, He Wang, and Yuqing Zhang. 2020. Efficient vulnerability detection based on abstract syntax tree and deep learning. In IEEE INFOCOM 2020-IEEE Conference on Computer Communications Workshops (INFOCOM WKSHPS) . IEEE, 722–727

    2020

  35. [43]

    Matthias Feurer, Aaron Klein, Katharina Eggensperger, Jost Springenberg, Manuel Blum, and Frank Hutter. 2015. Efficient and robust automated machine learning. Advances in neural information processing systems 28 (2015)

    2015

  36. [44]

    Joseph Gear, Yue Xu, Ernest Foo, Praveen Gauravaram, Zahra Jadidi, and Leonie Simpson. 2023. Software Vulnerability Detection Using Informed Code Graph Pruning. IEEE Access 11 (2023), 135626–135644

    2023

  37. [46]

    Seyed Mohammad Ghaffarian and Hamid Reza Shahriari. 2017. Software vulnerability analysis and discovery using machine-learning and data-mining techniques: A survey. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) 50, 4 (2017), 1–36

    2017

  38. [47]

    Mianxue Gu, Hantao Feng, Hongyu Sun, Peng Liu, Qiuling Yue, Jinglu Hu, Chunjie Cao, and Yuqing Zhang. 2022. Hierarchical Attention Network for Interpretable and Fine-Grained Vulnerability Detection. In IEEE INFOCOM 2022-IEEE Conference on Computer Communications Workshops (INF...

    2022

  39. [48]

    Wenbo Guo, Yong Fang, Cheng Huang, Haoran Ou, Chun Lin, and Yongyan Guo. 2022. HyVulDect: A hybrid semantic vulnerability mining system based on Graph Neural Network. Computers & Security (2022), 102823

    2022

  40. [49]

    Lansheng Han, Man Zhou, Yekui Qian, Cai Fu, and Deqing Zou. 2019. An optimized static propositional function model to detect software vulnerability. IEEE Access 7 (2019), 143499–143510. AI-Based Software Vulnerability Detection: A Systematic Literature Review 31

    2019

  41. [50]

    Hazim Hanif and Sergio Maffeis. 2022. Vulberta: Simplified source code pre-training for vulnerability detection. In 2022 International joint conference on neural networks (IJCNN) . IEEE, 1–8

    2022

  42. [51]

    Hazim Hanif, Mohd Hairul Nizam Md Nasir, Mohd Faizal Ab Razak, Ahmad Firdaus, and Nor Badrul Anuar. 2021. The rise of software vulnerability: Taxonomy of software vulnerabilities detection and machine learning approaches. Journal of Network and Computer Applications 179 (2021), 103009

    2021

  43. [52]

    Jingwei Hao, Senlin Luo, Limin Pan, and Chuantao Chen. 2023. VD-HEN: Capturing Semantic Dependencies for Source Code Vulnerability Detection With a Hierarchical Embedding Network. Computer 56, 10 (2023), 49–61

    2023

  44. [53]

    Xinhong Hei, Xinyue Yin, Yichuan Wang, Ju Ren, and Lei Zhu. 2020. A trusted feature aggregator federated learning for distributed malicious attack detection. Computers & Security 99 (2020), 102033

    2020

  45. [54]

    David Hin, Andrey Kan, Huaming Chen, and M Ali Babar. 2022. LineVD: Statement-level vulnerability detection using graph neural networks. In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Mining Software Repositories . 596–607

    2022

  46. [55]

    Hyunji Hong, Seunghoon Woo, Eunjin Choi, Jihyun Choi, and Heejo Lee. 2022. xVDB: A high-coverage approach for constructing a vulnerability database. IEEE Access 10 (2022), 85050–85063

    2022

  47. [56]

    IBM. [n. d.]. What is Self-Supervised Learning? https://www.ibm.com/think/topics/self-supervised-learning Accessed: 2025-01-24

    2025

  48. [57]

    Sanghoon Jeon and Huy Kang Kim. 2021. AutoVAS: An automated vulnerability analysis system with a deep learning approach. Computers & Security 106 (2021), 102308

    2021

  49. [58]

    Gong Jie, Kuang Xiao-Hui, and Liu Qiang. 2016. Survey on Software Vulnerability Analysis Method Based on Machine Learning. In 2016 IEEE First International Conference on Data Science in Cyberspace (DSC) . 642–647. https://doi.org/10.1109/DSC.2016.33

    2016 doi

  50. [59]

    Heba Kadry, Ahmed Farouk, Elnomery A Zanaty, and Omar Reyad. 2023. Intrusion detection model using optimized quantum neural network and elliptical curve cryptography for data security. Alexandria Engineering Journal 71 (2023), 491–500

    2023

  51. [60]

    Wooseok Kang, Byoungho Son, and Kihong Heo. 2022. TRACER: signature-based static analysis for detecting recurring vulnerabilities. In Proceedings of the 2022 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security . 1695–1708

    2022

  52. [61]

    Soolin Kim, Jusop Choi, Muhammad Ejaz Ahmed, Surya Nepal, and Hyoungshick Kim. 2022. VulDeBERT: A Vulnerability Detection System Using BERT. In 2022 IEEE International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering Workshops (ISSREW) . IEEE, 69–74

    2022

  53. [62]

    Maryna Kluban, Mohammad Mannan, and Amr Youssef. 2022. On measuring vulnerable javascript functions in the wild. InProceedings of the 2022 ACM on Asia Conference on Computer and Communications Security . 917–930

    2022

  54. [63]

    Beibei Li, Yuhao Wu, Jiarui Song, Rongxing Lu, Tao Li, and Liang Zhao. 2020. DeepFed: Federated deep learning for intrusion detection in industrial cyber–physical systems. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics 17, 8 (2020), 5615–5624

    2020

  55. [64]

    Min Li, Chunfang Li, Shuailou Li, Yanna Wu, Boyang Zhang, and Yu Wen. 2021. Acgvd: Vulnerability detection based on comprehensive graph via graph neural network with attention. In Information and Communications Security: 23rd International Conference, ICICS 2021, Chongqing, Ch...

    2021

  56. [65]

    Wei Li, Xiang Li, Wanzheng Feng, Guanglu Jin, Zhihan Liu, and Jing Jia. 2023. Vulnerability Detection Based on Unified Code Property Graph. In International Conference on Web Information Systems and Applications . Springer, 359–370

    2023

  57. [66]

    Xin Li, Lu Wang, Yang Xin, Yixian Yang, and Yuling Chen. 2020. Automated vulnerability detection in source code using minimum intermediate representation learning. Applied Sciences 10, 5 (2020), 1692

    2020

  58. [67]

    Yi Li, Shaohua Wang, and Tien N Nguyen. 2021. Vulnerability detection with fine-grained interpretations. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM Joint Meeting on European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering . 292–303

    2021

  59. [68]

    Yi Li, Aashish Yadavally, Jiaxing Zhang, Shaohua Wang, and Tien N Nguyen. 2023. Commit-Level, Neural Vulnerability Detection and Assessment. In Proceedings of the 31st ACM Joint European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering. ...

    2023

  60. [69]

    Zhen Li, Deqing Zou, Shouhuai Xu, Zhaoxuan Chen, Yawei Zhu, and Hai Jin. 2021. Vuldeelocator: a deep learning-based fine-grained vulnerability detector. IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing 19, 4 (2021), 2821–2837

    2021

  61. [70]

    Zhen Li, Deqing Zou, Shouhuai Xu, Hai Jin, Yawei Zhu, and Zhaoxuan Chen. 2021. Sysevr: A framework for using deep learning to detect software vulnerabilities. IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing 19, 4 (2021), 2244–2258

    2021

  62. [71]

    Zhen Li, Deqing Zou, Shouhuai Xu, Xinyu Ou, Hai Jin, Sujuan Wang, Zhijun Deng, and Yuyi Zhong. 2018. Vuldeepecker: A deep learning-based system for vulnerability detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:1801.01681 (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  63. [72]

    Hongliang Liang, Xiaoxiao Pei, Xiaodong Jia, Wuwei Shen, and Jian Zhang. 2018. Fuzzing: State of the art. IEEE Transactions on Reliability 67, 3 (2018), 1199–1218

    2018

  64. [73]

    Guanjun Lin, Jun Zhang, Wei Luo, Lei Pan, Olivier De Vel, Paul Montague, and Yang Xiang. 2019. Software vulnerability discovery via learning multi-domain knowledge bases. IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing 18, 5 (2019), 2469–2485

    2019

  65. [74]

    Guanjun Lin, Jun Zhang, Wei Luo, Lei Pan, Yang Xiang, Olivier De Vel, and Paul Montague. 2018. Cross-project transfer representation learning for vulnerable function discovery. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics 14, 7 (2018), 3289–3297

    2018

  66. [75]

    Bingchang Liu, Liang Shi, Zhuhua Cai, and Min Li. 2012. Software Vulnerability Discovery Techniques: A Survey. In 2012 Fourth International Conference on Multimedia Information Networking and Security . 152–156. https://doi.org/10.1109/MINES.2012.202

    2012 doi

  67. [76]

    Jingqiang Liu, Xiaoxi Zhu, Chaoge Liu, Xiang Cui, and Qixu Liu. 2022. CPGBERT: An Effective Model for Defect Detection by Learning Program Semantics via Code Property Graph. In 2022 IEEE International Conference on Trust, Security and Privacy in Computing and Communications (T...

    2022

  68. [77]

    Miao Liu, Boyu Zhang, Wenbin Chen, and Xunlai Zhang. 2019. A survey of exploitation and detection methods of XSS vulnerabilities. IEEE access 7 (2019), 182004–182016

    2019

  69. [78]

    Shigang Liu, Guanjun Lin, Qing-Long Han, Sheng Wen, Jun Zhang, and Yang Xiang. 2019. DeepBalance: Deep-learning and fuzzy oversampling for vulnerability detection. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems 28, 7 (2019), 1329–1343

    2019

  70. [79]

    Shigang Liu, Guanjun Lin, Lizhen Qu, Jun Zhang, Olivier De Vel, Paul Montague, and Yang Xiang. 2020. CD-VulD: Cross-domain vulnerability discovery based on deep domain adaptation. IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing 19, 1 (2020), 438–451

    2020

  71. [80]

    Yuankun Liu and Yu Wang. 2022. An Effective Software Vulnerability Detection Method Based On Devised Deep-Learning Model To Fix The Vague Separation. In Proceedings of the 2022 3rd International Symposium on Big Data and Artificial Intelligence . 90–95

    2022

  72. [81]

    Francesco Lomio, Emanuele Iannone, Andrea De Lucia, Fabio Palomba, and Valentina Lenarduzzi. 2022. Just-in-time software vulnerability detection: Are we there yet? Journal of Systems and Software (2022), 111283

    2022

  73. [82]

    Shuai Lu, Daya Guo, Shuo Ren, Junjie Huang, Alexey Svyatkovskiy, Ambrosio Blanco, Colin B. Clement, Dawn Drain, Daxin Jiang, Duyu Tang, Ge Li, Lidong Zhou, Linjun Shou, Long Zhou, Michele Tufano, Ming Gong, Ming Zhou, Nan Duan, Neel Sundaresan, Shao Kun Deng, Shengyu Fu, and S...

    2021 arXiv

  74. [83]

    Yu Luo, Weifeng Xu, and Dianxiang Xu. 2022. Compact Abstract Graphs for Detecting Code Vulnerability with GNN Models. In Proceedings of the 38th Annual Computer Security Applications Conference . 497–507

    2022

  75. [84]

    Ruchika Malhotra. 2015. A systematic review of machine learning techniques for software fault prediction. Applied Soft Computing 27 (2015), 504–518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2014.11.023

    2015 doi

  76. [85]

    Yi Mao, Yun Li, Jiatai Sun, and Yixin Chen. 2020. Explainable software vulnerability detection based on attention-based bidirectional recurrent neural networks. In 2020 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data) . IEEE, 4651–4656

    2020

  77. [86]

    Brendan McMahan, Eider Moore, Daniel Ramage, Seth Hampson, and Blaise Aguera y Arcas. 2017. Communication-efficient learning of deep networks from decentralized data. In Artificial intelligence and statistics. PMLR, 1273–1282

    2017

  78. [87]

    Nadia Medeiros, Naghmeh Ivaki, Pedro Costa, and Marco Vieira. 2020. Vulnerable code detection using software metrics and machine learning. IEEE Access 8 (2020), 219174–219198

    2020

  79. [88]

    Mendeley. 2004. NIST Software Assurance Reference Dataset. https://www.mendeley.com/. Accessed: 2024-01-28

    2004

  80. [89]

    Rabaya Sultana Mim, Afrina Khatun, Toukir Ahammed, and Kazi Sakib. 2023. Impact of Centrality on Automated Vulnerability Detection Using Convolutional Neural Network. In 2023 International Conference on Information and Communication Technology for Sustainable Development (ICIC...

    2023

  81. [90]

    MITRE. 1999. Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures. https://cve.mitre.org/cve/. Accessed: 2023-10-20

    1999

  82. [91]

    David Moher, Alessandro Liberati, Jennifer Tetzlaff, Douglas G Altman, and the PRISMA Group*. 2009. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Annals of internal medicine 151, 4 (2009), 264–269

    2009

  83. [92]

    Balázs Mosolygó, Norbert Vándor, Péter Hegedűs, and Rudolf Ferenc. 2022. A Line-Level Explainable Vulnerability Detection Approach for Java. In International Conference on Computational Science and Its Applications . Springer, 106–122

    2022

  84. [93]

    Kollin Napier, Tanmay Bhowmik, and Shaowei Wang. 2023. An empirical study of text-based machine learning models for vulnerability detection. Empirical Software Engineering 28, 2 (2023), 38

    2023

  85. [94]

    Mohammad Taneem Bin Nazim, Md Jobair Hossain Faruk, Hossain Shahriar, Md Abdullah Khan, Mohammad Masum, Nazmus Sakib, and Fan Wu. 2022. Systematic analysis of deep learning model for vulnerable code detection. In 2022 IEEE 46th Annual Computers, Software, and Applications Conf...

    2022

  86. [95]

    Van Nguyen, Trung Le, Olivier De Vel, Paul Montague, John Grundy, and Dinh Phung. 2021. Information-theoretic source code vulnerability highlighting. In 2021 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN) . IEEE, 1–8

    2021

  87. [96]

    Van-Anh Nguyen, Dai Quoc Nguyen, Van Nguyen, Trung Le, Quan Hung Tran, and Dinh Phung. 2022. ReGVD: Revisiting graph neural networks for vulnerability detection. In Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE 44th International Conference on Software Engineering: Companion Proceedings. 178–182

    2022

  88. [97]

    Georgios Nikitopoulos, Konstantina Dritsa, Panos Louridas, and Dimitris Mitropoulos. 2021. CrossVul: a cross-language vulnerability dataset with commit data. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM Joint Meeting on European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundatio...

    2021

  89. [98]

    Yu Nong, Rainy Sharma, Abdelwahab Hamou-Lhadj, Xiapu Luo, and Haipeng Cai. 2022. Open science in software engineering: A study on deep learning-based vulnerability detection. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 49, 4 (2022), 1983–2005

    2022

  90. [99]

    NVD. 2024. National Vulnerability Database. https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-44228. Accessed: 2024-01-01

    2024

  91. [100]

    NVD. 2024. National Vulnerability Database. https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-45046. Accessed: 2024-01-01

    2024

  92. [101]

    Om Prakash Patel, Neha Bharill, Aruna Tiwari, Vikram Patel, Ojas Gupta, Jian Cao, Jun Li, and Mukesh Prasad. 2019. Advanced quantum based neural network classifier and its application for objectionable web content filtering. IEEE Access 7 (2019), 98069–98082

    2019

  93. [102]

    Bitao Peng, Zhen Liu, Jinrong Zhang, and Pengcheng Su. 2023. CEVulDet: A Code Edge Representation Learnable Vulnerability Detector. In 2023 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN) . IEEE, 1–8

    2023

  94. [103]

    Tao Peng, Shixu Chen, Fei Zhu, Junwei Tang, Junping Liu, and Xinrong Hu. 2023. PTLVD: Program Slicing and Transformer-based Line-level Vulnerability Detection System. In2023 IEEE 23rd International Working Conference on Source Code Analysis and Manipulation (SCAM). IEEE, 162–173

    2023

  95. [104]

    José D’Abruzzo Pereira, Nuno Lourenço, and Marco Vieira. 2022. On the Use of Deep Graph CNN to Detect Vulnerable C Functions. In Proceedings of the 11th Latin-American Symposium on Dependable Computing . 45–50

    2022

  96. [105]

    Marco Pistoia, Satish Chandra, Stephen J Fink, and Eran Yahav. 2007. A survey of static analysis methods for identifying security vulnerabilities in software systems. IBM systems journal 46, 2 (2007), 265–288

    2007

  97. [106]

    Serena Elisa Ponta, Henrik Plate, Antonino Sabetta, Michele Bezzi, and Cédric Dangremont. 2019. A manually-curated dataset of fixes to vulnerabilities of open-source software. In 2019 IEEE/ACM 16th International Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR) . IEEE, 383–387

    2019

  98. [107]

    Moumita Das Purba, Arpita Ghosh, Benjamin J Radford, and Bill Chu. 2023. Software vulnerability detection using large language models. In 2023 IEEE 34th International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering Workshops (ISSREW) . IEEE, 112–119

    2023

  99. [108]

    Vu Le Anh Quan, Chau Thuan Phat, Kiet Van Nguyen, Phan The Duy, and Van-Hau Pham. 2023. XGV-BERT: Leveraging Contextualized Language Model and Graph Neural Network for Efficient Software Vulnerability Detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.14677 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  100. [109]

    Sazzadur Rahaman, Ya Xiao, Sharmin Afrose, Fahad Shaon, Ke Tian, Miles Frantz, Murat Kantarcioglu, and Danfeng Yao. 2019. Cryptoguard: High precision detection of cryptographic vulnerabilities in massive-sized java projects. In Proceedings of the 2019 ACM SIGSAC Conference on ...

    2019

  101. [110]

    Sawsan Abdul Rahman, Hanine Tout, Chamseddine Talhi, and Azzam Mourad. 2020. Internet of things intrusion detection: Centralized, on-device, or federated learning? IEEE Network 34, 6 (2020), 310–317

    2020

  102. [111]

    Sofia Rei and Rui Abreu. 2017. A database of existing vulnerabilities to enable controlled testing studies. International Journal of Secure Software Engineering (IJSSE) 8, 3 (2017), 1–23

    2017

  103. [112]

    Sofia Reis and Rui Abreu. 2017. SECBENCH: A Database of Real Security Vulnerabilities.. In SecSE@ ESORICS. 69–85

    2017

  104. [113]

    Sofia Reis and Rui Abreu. 2021. A ground-truth dataset of real security patches. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.09635 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  105. [114]

    Valerian Rey, Pedro Miguel Sánchez Sánchez, Alberto Huertas Celdrán, and Gérôme Bovet. 2022. Federated learning for malware detection in IoT devices. Computer Networks 204 (2022), 108693

    2022

  106. [115]

    Why should i trust you?

    Marco Tulio Ribeiro, Sameer Singh, and Carlos Guestrin. 2016. " Why should i trust you?" Explaining the predictions of any classifier. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining . 1135–1144

    2016

  107. [116]

    Rebecca Russell, Louis Kim, Lei Hamilton, Tomo Lazovich, Jacob Harer, Onur Ozdemir, Paul Ellingwood, and Marc McConley. 2018. Automated vulnerability detection in source code using deep representation learning. In 2018 17th IEEE international conference on machine learning and...

    2018

  108. [117]

    Nicholas Saccente, Josh Dehlinger, Lin Deng, Suranjan Chakraborty, and Yin Xiong. 2019. Project achilles: A prototype tool for static method-level vulnerability detection of Java source code using a recurrent neural network. In 2019 34th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Au...

    2019

  109. [118]

    Canan Batur Şahin. 2023. Semantic-based vulnerability detection by functional connectivity of gated graph sequence neural networks. Soft Computing 27, 9 (2023), 5703–5719

    2023

  110. [119]

    Solmaz Salimi, Maryam Ebrahimzadeh, and Mehdi Kharrazi. 2020. Improving real-world vulnerability characterization with vulnerable slices. In Proceedings of the 16th ACM International Conference on Predictive Models and Data Analytics in Software Engineering . 11–20

    2020

  111. [120]

    Franco Scarselli, Marco Gori, Ah Chung Tsoi, Markus Hagenbuchner, and Gabriele Monfardini. 2008. The graph neural network model. IEEE transactions on neural networks 20, 1 (2008), 61–80

    2008

  112. [121]

    Abubakar Omari Abdallah Semasaba, Wei Zheng, Xiaoxue Wu, and Samuel Akwasi Agyemang. 2020. Literature survey of deep learning-based vulnerability analysis on source code. IET Software 14, 6 (2020), 654–664

    2020

  113. [122]

    Janaka Senanayake, Harsha Kalutarage, Mhd Omar Al-Kadri, Andrei Petrovski, and Luca Piras. 2023. Android source code vulnerability detection: a systematic literature review. Comput. Surveys 55, 9 (2023), 1–37

    2023

  114. [123]

    Hossain Shahriar and Mohammad Zulkernine. 2012. Mitigating Program Security Vulnerabilities: Approaches and Challenges. 44, 3 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1145/2187671.2187673

    2012

  115. [124]

    Samiha Shimmi, Ashiqur Rahman, Mohan Gadde, Hamed Okhravi, and Mona Rahimi. 2024. {VulSim}: Leveraging Similarity of {Multi-Dimensional} Neighbor Embeddings for Vulnerability Detection. In 33rd USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 24) . 1777–1794

    2024

  116. [125]

    Nima Shiri Harzevili, Alvine Boaye Belle, Junjie Wang, Song Wang, Zhen Ming (Jack) Jiang, and Nachiappan Nagappan. 2024. A Systematic Literature Review on Automated Software Vulnerability Detection Using Machine Learning. ACM Comput. Surv. 57, 3, Article 55 (Nov. 2024), 36 pag...

    2024 doi

  117. [126]

    Dokyung Song, Julian Lettner, Prabhu Rajasekaran, Yeoul Na, Stijn Volckaert, Per Larsen, and Michael Franz. 2019. SoK: Sanitizing for security. In 2019 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP) . IEEE, 1275–1295

    2019

  118. [127]

    Zihua Song, Junfeng Wang, Shengli Liu, Zhiyang Fang, Kaiyuan Yang, et al. 2022. HGVul: A code vulnerability detection method based on heterogeneous source-level intermediate representation. Security and Communication Networks 2022 (2022)

    2022

  119. [128]

    Benjamin Steenhoek, Md Mahbubur Rahman, Richard Jiles, and Wei Le. 2023. An empirical study of deep learning models for vulnerability detection. In 2023 IEEE/ACM 45th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE) . IEEE, 2237–2248

    2023

  120. [129]

    Hao Sun, Zhe Bu, Yang Xiao, Chengsheng Zhou, Zhiyu Hao, and Hongsong Zhu. 2023. Software Vulnerability Detection Using an Enhanced Generalization Strategy. In International Symposium on Dependable Software Engineering: Theories, Tools, and Applications . Springer, 226–242

    2023

  121. [130]

    Hao Sun, Yongji Liu, Zhenquan Ding, Yang Xiao, Zhiyu Hao, and Hongsong Zhu. 2023. An Enhanced Vulnerability Detection in Software Using a Heterogeneous Encoding Ensemble. In 2023 IEEE Symposium on Computers and Communications (ISCC) . IEEE, 1214–1220

    2023

  122. [131]

    Zhiquan Tang, Qiao Hu, Yupeng Hu, Wenxin Kuang, and Jiongyi Chen. 2022. SEVulDet: A Semantics-Enhanced Learnable Vulnerability Detector. In 2022 52nd Annual IEEE/IFIP International Conference on Dependable Systems and Networks (DSN) . IEEE, 150–162

    2022

  123. [132]

    Wenxin Tao, Xiaohong Su, Jiayuan Wan, Hongwei Wei, and Weining Zheng. 2023. Vulnerability Detection Through Cross-modal Feature Enhancement and Fusion. Computers & Security (2023), 103341

    2023

  124. [133]

    Junfeng Tian, Junkun Zhang, and Fanming Liu. 2021. Bbreglocator: A vulnerability detection system based on bounding box regression. In 2021 51st Annual IEEE/IFIP International Conference on Dependable Systems and Networks Workshops (DSN-W) . IEEE, 93–100

    2021

  125. [134]

    Zhenzhou Tian, Binhui Tian, Jiajun Lv, and Lingwei Chen. 2023. Learning and fusing multi-view code representations for function vulnerability detection. Electronics 12, 11 (2023), 2495

    2023

  126. [135]

    Zhenzhou Tian, Binhui Tian, Jiajun Lv, Yanping Chen, and Lingwei Chen. 2024. Enhancing vulnerability detection via AST decomposi- tion and neural sub-tree encoding. Expert Systems with Applications 238 (2024), 121865

    2024

  127. [136]

    Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Łukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. Advances in neural information processing systems 30 (2017)

    2017

  128. [137]

    Huanting Wang, Guixin Ye, Zhanyong Tang, Shin Hwei Tan, Songfang Huang, Dingyi Fang, Yansong Feng, Lizhong Bian, and Zheng Wang. 2020. Combining graph-based learning with automated data collection for code vulnerability detection. IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and...

    2020

  129. [138]

    Wenbo Wang, Tien N Nguyen, Shaohua Wang, Yi Li, Jiyuan Zhang, and Aashish Yadavally. 2023. DeepVD: Toward Class-Separation Features for Neural Network Vulnerability Detection. In 2023 IEEE/ACM 45th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE) . IEEE, 2249–2261

    2023

  130. [139]

    Anne Watson, Ekincan Ufuktepe, and Kannappan Palaniappan. 2022. Detecting Software Code Vulnerabilities Using 2D Convolutional Neural Networks with Program Slicing Feature Maps. In 2022 IEEE Applied Imagery Pattern Recognition Workshop (AIPR) . IEEE, 1–9

    2022

  131. [140]

    Xin-Cheng Wen, Xinchen Wang, Cuiyun Gao, Shaohua Wang, Yang Liu, and Zhaoquan Gu. 2023. When Less is Enough: Positive and Unlabeled Learning Model for Vulnerability Detection. In 2023 38th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE). IEEE, 345–357

    2023

  132. [141]

    Bozhi Wu, Shangqing Liu, Yang Xiao, Zhiming Li, Jun Sun, and Shang-Wei Lin. 2023. Learning Program Semantics for Vulnerability Detection via Vulnerability-Specific Inter-procedural Slicing. In Proceedings of the 31st ACM Joint European Software Engineering Conference and Sympo...

    2023

  133. [142]

    Peng Wu, Liangze Yin, Xiang Du, Liyuan Jia, and Wei Dong. 2020. Graph-based vulnerability detection via extracting features from sliced code. In 2020 IEEE 20th International Conference on Software Quality, Reliability and Security Companion (QRS-C) . IEEE, 38–45

    2020

  134. [143]

    Tongshuai Wu, Liwei Chen, Gewangzi Du, Chenguang Zhu, Ningning Cui, and Gang Shi. 2022. Inductive Vulnerability Detection via Gated Graph Neural Network. In 2022 IEEE 25th International Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work in Design (CSCWD) . IEEE, 519–524

    2022

  135. [144]

    Tongshuai Wu, Liwei Chen, Gewangzi Du, Chenguang Zhu, Ningning Cui, and Gang Shi. 2023. CDNM: Clustering-Based Data Normalization Method For Automated Vulnerability Detection. Comput. J. (2023), bxad080

    2023

  136. [145]

    Tongshuai Wu, Liwei Chen, Gewangzi Du, Chenguang Zhu, and Gang Shi. 2021. Self-attention based automated vulnerability detection with effective data representation. In 2021 IEEE Intl Conf on Parallel & Distributed Processing with Applications, Big Data & Cloud Computing, Susta...

    2021

  137. [146]

    Yuelong Wu, Jintian Lu, Yunyi Zhang, and Shuyuan Jin. 2021. Vulnerability detection in c/c++ source code with graph representation learning. In 2021 IEEE 11th Annual Computing and Communication Workshop and Conference (CCWC) . IEEE, 1519–1524

    2021

  138. [147]

    Yueming Wu, Deqing Zou, Shihan Dou, Wei Yang, Duo Xu, and Hai Jin. 2022. VulCNN: An image-inspired scalable vulnerability detection system. In Proceedings of the 44th International Conference on Software Engineering . 2365–2376

    2022

  139. [148]

    Xiaoling Xia, Yu Wang, and Ye Yang. 2021. Source Code Vulnerability Detection Based On SAR-GIN. In 2021 2nd International Conference on Electronics, Communications and Information Technology (CECIT) . IEEE, 1144–1149

    2021

  140. [149]

    Wang Xiaomeng, Zhang Tao, Wu Runpu, Xin Wei, and Hou Changyu. 2018. CPGVA: Code property graph based vulnerability analysis by deep learning. In 2018 10th International Conference on Advanced Infocomm Technology (ICAIT) . IEEE, 184–188

    2018

  141. [150]

    Cho Do Xuan. 2023. A new approach to software vulnerability detection based on CPG analysis. Cogent Engineering 10, 1 (2023), 2221962

    2023

  142. [151]

    Jintao Xue, Zihan Yu, Yubo Song, Zhongyuan Qin, Xin Sun, and Wen Wang. 2023. VulSAT: Source Code Vulnerability Detection Scheme Based on SAT Structure. In 2023 8th International Conference on Signal and Image Processing (ICSIP) . IEEE, 639–644

    2023

  143. [152]

    Hongyu Yang, Haiyun Yang, Liang Zhang, and Xiang Cheng. 2022. Source Code Vulnerability Detection Using Vulnerability Dependency Representation Graph. In2022 IEEE International Conference on Trust, Security and Privacy in Computing and Communications (TrustCom). IEEE, 457–464

    2022

  144. [153]

    Jia Yang, Ou Ruan, and JiXin Zhang. 2024. Tensor-based gated graph neural network for automatic vulnerability detection in source code. Software Testing, Verification and Reliability (2024), e1867

    2024

  145. [154]

    Zhitao Ying, Dylan Bourgeois, Jiaxuan You, Marinka Zitnik, and Jure Leskovec. 2019. Gnnexplainer: Generating explanations for graph neural networks. Advances in neural information processing systems 32 (2019)

    2019

  146. [155]

    Bin Yuan, Yifan Lu, Yilin Fang, Yueming Wu, Deqing Zou, Zhen Li, Zhi Li, and Hai Jin. 2023. Enhancing Deep Learning-based Vulnerability Detection by Building Behavior Graph Model. In 2023 IEEE/ACM 45th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE). IEEE, 2262–2274

    2023

  147. [156]

    Oualid Zaazaa and Hanan El Bakkali. 2020. Dynamic vulnerability detection approaches and tools: State of the Art. In 2020 Fourth International Conference On Intelligent Computing in Data Sciences (ICDS) . IEEE, 1–6

    2020

  148. [157]

    Mohammed Zagane, Mustapha Kamel Abdi, and Mamdouh Alenezi. 2020. A new approach to locate software vulnerabilities using code metrics. International Journal of Software Innovation (IJSI) 8, 3 (2020), 82–95

    2020

  149. [158]

    Jingxiang Zeng, Xiaofan Nie, Liwei Chen, Jinfeng Li, Gewangzi Du, and Gang Shi. 2020. An efficient vulnerability extrapolation using similarity of graph kernel of pdgs. In 2020 IEEE 19th International Conference on Trust, Security and Privacy in Computing and Communications (T...

    2020

  150. [159]

    Peng Zeng, Guanjun Lin, Lei Pan, Yonghang Tai, and Jun Zhang. 2020. Software vulnerability analysis and discovery using deep learning techniques: A survey. IEEE Access 8 (2020), 197158–197172

    2020

  151. [160]

    Chunyong Zhang, Bin Liu, Yang Xin, and Liangwei Yao. 2023. CPVD: Cross Project Vulnerability Detection Based On Graph Attention Network And Domain Adaptation. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering (2023)

    2023

  152. [161]

    Chunyong Zhang and Yang Xin. 2023. Static vulnerability detection based on class separation. Journal of Systems and Software 206 (2023), 111832

    2023

  153. [162]

    Chunyong Zhang and Yang Xin. 2023. VulGAI: vulnerability detection based on graphs and images. Computers & Security 135 (2023), 103501

    2023

  154. [163]

    Chunyong Zhang, Tianxiang Yu, Bin Liu, and Yang Xin. 2024. Vulnerability detection based on federated learning. Information and Software Technology 167 (2024), 107371

    2024

  155. [164]

    Haibin Zhang, Yifei Bi, Hongzhi Guo, Wen Sun, and Jianpeng Li. 2021. ISVSF: Intelligent vulnerability detection against Java via sentence-level pattern exploring. IEEE Systems Journal 16, 1 (2021), 1032–1043

    2021

  156. [166]

    Junwei Zhang, Zhongxin Liu, Xing Hu, Xin Xia, and Shanping Li. 2023. Vulnerability Detection by Learning from Syntax-Based Execution Paths of Code. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering (2023)

    2023

  157. [167]

    Xuejun Zhang, Fenghe Zhang, Bo Zhao, Bo Zhou, and Boyang Xiao. 2023. VulD-Transformer: Source Code Vulnerability Detection via Transformer. In Proceedings of the 14th Asia-Pacific Symposium on Internetware . 185–193

    2023

  158. [168]

    Ying Zhang, Ya Xiao, Md Mahir Asef Kabir, Danfeng Yao, and Na Meng. 2022. Example-based vulnerability detection and repair in java code. In Proceedings of the 30th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Program Comprehension . 190–201

    2022

  159. [169]

    Yuting Zhang, Jiahao Zhu, Yixin Yang, Ming Wen, and Hai Jin. 2023. Comparing the Performance of Different Code Representations for Learning-based Vulnerability Detection. In Proceedings of the 14th Asia-Pacific Symposium on Internetware . 174–184

    2023

  160. [170]

    Weining Zheng, Yuan Jiang, and Xiaohong Su. 2021. Vu1SPG: Vulnerability detection based on slice property graph representation learning. In 2021 IEEE 32nd International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering (ISSRE) . IEEE, 457–467

    2021

  161. [171]

    Wei Zheng, Abubakar Omari Abdallah Semasaba, Xiaoxue Wu, Samuel Akwasi Agyemang, Tao Liu, and Yuan Ge. 2021. Representation vs. Model: What Matters Most for Source Code Vulnerability Detection. In 2021 IEEE International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution and Reenginee...

    2021

  162. [172]

    Yunhui Zheng, Saurabh Pujar, Burn Lewis, Luca Buratti, Edward Epstein, Bo Yang, Jim Laredo, Alessandro Morari, and Zhong Su

  163. [173]

    Xin Zhou, Jianmin Pang, Feng Yue, Fudong Liu, Jiayu Guo, Wenfu Liu, Zhihui Song, Guoqiang Shu, Bing Xia, and Zheng Shan. 2022. A new method of software vulnerability detection based on a quantum neural network. Scientific Reports 12, 1 (2022), 8053

    2022

  164. [174]

    Yaqin Zhou, Shangqing Liu, Jingkai Siow, Xiaoning Du, and Yang Liu. 2019. Devign: Effective Vulnerability Identification by Learning Comprehensive Program Semantics via Graph Neural Networks. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , H. Wallach, H. Larochelle, A. ...

    2019

  165. [175]

    Yaqin Zhou, Shangqing Liu, Jingkai Siow, Xiaoning Du, and Yang Liu. 2019. Devign: Effective vulnerability identification by learning comprehensive program semantics via graph neural networks. Advances in neural information processing systems 32 (2019)

    2019

  166. [176]

    Yuhui Zhu, Guanjun Lin, Lipeng Song, and Jun Zhang. 2022. The application of neural network for software vulnerability detection: a review. Neural Computing and Applications (2022), 1–23

    2022

  167. [177]

    Yuhui Zhu, Guanjun Lin, Lipeng Song, and Jun Zhang. 2023. The application of neural network for software vulnerability detection: a review. Neural Computing and Applications 35, 2 (2023), 1279–1301. AI-Based Software Vulnerability Detection: A Systematic Literature Review 35

    2023

  168. [178]

    Noah Ziems and Shaoen Wu. 2021. Security vulnerability detection using deep learning natural language processing. InIEEE INFOCOM 2021-IEEE Conference on Computer Communications Workshops (INFOCOM WKSHPS) . IEEE, 1–6

    2021

  169. [179]

    Deqing Zou, Sujuan Wang, Shouhuai Xu, Zhen Li, and Hai Jin. 2019. 𝜇 VulDeePecker: A Deep Learning-Based System for Multiclass Vulnerability Detection. IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing 18, 5 (2019), 2224–2236

    2019

  170. [2021]

    In 2021 IEEE/ACM 43rd International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering in Practice (ICSE-SEIP)

    D2a: A dataset built for ai-based vulnerability detection methods using differential analysis. In 2021 IEEE/ACM 43rd International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering in Practice (ICSE-SEIP) . IEEE, 111–120

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.