Are Latent Vulnerabilities Hidden Gems for Software Vulnerability Prediction? An Empirical Study
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Collecting relevant and high-quality data is integral to the development of effective Software Vulnerability (SV) prediction models. Most of the current SV datasets rely on SV-fixing commits to extract vulnerable functions and lines. However, none of these datasets have considered latent SVs existing between the introduction and fix of the collected SVs. There is also little known about the usefulness of these latent SVs for SV prediction. To bridge these gaps, we conduct a large-scale study on the latent vulnerable functions in two commonly used SV datasets and their utilization for function-level and line-level SV predictions. Leveraging the state-of-the-art SZZ algorithm, we identify more than 100k latent vulnerable functions in the studied datasets. We find that these latent functions can increase the number of SVs by 4x on average and correct up to 5k mislabeled functions, yet they have a noise level of around 6%. Despite the noise, we show that the state-of-the-art SV prediction model can significantly benefit from such latent SVs. The improvements are up to 24.5% in the performance (F1-Score) of function-level SV predictions and up to 67% in the effectiveness of localizing vulnerable lines. Overall, our study presents the first promising step toward the use of latent SVs to improve the quality of SV datasets and enhance the performance of SV prediction tasks.
Key facts. Cited by 9 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 20 of its 70 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 20 Jan 2024.
Builds on
20 of 70 references.
References · 20
- 2020CodeBERT: A Pre-Trained Model for Programming and Natural Languagescited by 1,310
- 2020Deep Learning based Vulnerability Detection: Are We There Yet?cited by 144
- 2021A Survey on Data Augmentation for Text Classificationcited by 111
- 2021Vulnerability Detection with Fine-grained Interpretationscited by 56
- 2020Deep Learning for Source Code Modeling and Generation: Models, Applications and Challengescited by 55
- 2023Data Quality for Software Vulnerability Datasetscited by 51
- 2021D2A: A Dataset Built for AI-Based Vulnerability Detection Methods Using Differential Analysiscited by 49
- 2020On the Generalizability of Neural Program Models with respect to Semantic-Preserving Program Transformationscited by 44
- 2020Sampling in Software Engineering Research: A Critical Review and Guidelinescited by 23
- 2021A Survey on Data-driven Software Vulnerability Assessment and Prioritizationcited by 18
- 2021Automated Software Vulnerability Assessment with Concept Driftcited by 15
- 2020A Large-scale Study of Security Vulnerability Support on Developer Q&A Websitescited by 12
8 more
- 2020PUMiner: Mining Security Posts from Developer Question and Answer Websites with PU Learningcited by 10
- 2021Practitioners' Perceptions of the Goals and Visual Explanations of Defect Prediction Modelscited by 9
- 2022Noisy Label Learning for Security Defectscited by 7
- 20199.6 Million Links in Source Code Comments: Purpose, Evolution, and Decaycited by 6
- 2019Problems with SZZ and Features: An empirical study of the state of practice of defect prediction data collectioncited by 6
- 2021Automated Security Assessment for the Internet of Thingscited by 6
- 2023SoK: Machine Learning for Continuous Integrationcited by 4
- 2023Systematic Literature Review on Application of Machine Learning in Continuous Integrationcited by 2
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2024: 5; 2025: 3; 2026: 1.
9 papers.
- 2024Software Vulnerability Prediction in Low-Resource Languages: An Empirical Study of CodeBERT and ChatGPTcited by 9
- 2025LLMSecConfig: An LLM-Based Approach for Fixing Software Container Misconfigurationscited by 9
- 2024Mitigating Data Imbalance for Software Vulnerability Assessment: Does Data Augmentation Help?cited by 6
- 2024Automated Code-centric Software Vulnerability Assessment: How Far Are We? An Empirical Study in C/C++cited by 6
- 2024Automatic Data Labeling for Software Vulnerability Prediction Models: How Far Are We?cited by 6
- 2025A Systematic Study of Code Obfuscation Against LLM-based Vulnerability Detectioncited by 5
- 2024A Qualitative Study on Using ChatGPT for Software Security: Perception vs. Practicalitycited by 2
- 2025Software Vulnerability Management in the Era of Artificial Intelligence: An Industry Perspectivecited by 0
- 2026TraceVIC: Causal Reasoning over Code Evolution for Identifying Vulnerability-Inducing Commitscited by 0
- 2026TraceVIC: Causal Reasoning over Code Evolution for Identifying Vulnerability-Inducing Commits22 Sep 2026
- 2025Software Vulnerability Management in the Era of Artificial Intelligence: An Industry Perspective20 Dec 2025
- 2025A Systematic Study of Code Obfuscation Against LLM-based Vulnerability Detection18 Dec 2025
- 2025LLMSecConfig: An LLM-Based Approach for Fixing Software Container Misconfigurations4 Feb 2025
- 2024A Qualitative Study on Using ChatGPT for Software Security: Perception vs. Practicality1 Aug 2024
- 2024Automatic Data Labeling for Software Vulnerability Prediction Models: How Far Are We?25 Jul 2024
- 2024Automated Code-centric Software Vulnerability Assessment: How Far Are We? An Empirical Study in C/C++24 Jul 2024
- 2024Mitigating Data Imbalance for Software Vulnerability Assessment: Does Data Augmentation Help?15 Jul 2024
- 2024Software Vulnerability Prediction in Low-Resource Languages: An Empirical Study of CodeBERT and ChatGPT26 Apr 2024