Using ML filters to help automated vulnerability repairs: when it helps and when it doesn't
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
[Context:] The acceptance of candidate patches in automated program repair has been typically based on testing oracles. Testing requires typically a costly process of building the application while ML models can be used to quickly classify patches, thus allowing more candidate patches to be generated in a positive feedback loop. [Problem:] If the model predictions are unreliable (as in vulnerability detection) they can hardly replace the more reliable oracles based on testing. [New Idea:] We propose to use an ML model as a preliminary filter of candidate patches which is put in front of a traditional filter based on testing. [Preliminary Results:] We identify some theoretical bounds on the precision and recall of the ML algorithm that makes such operation meaningful in practice. With these bounds and the results published in the literature, we calculate how fast some of state-of-the art vulnerability detectors must be to be more effective over a traditional AVR pipeline such as APR4Vuln based just on testing.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 14 of its 30 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 9 Apr 2025.
Builds on
14 of 30 references.
References · 14
- 2020Deep Learning based Vulnerability Detection: Are We There Yet?cited by 144
- 2023InferFix: End-to-End Program Repair with LLMscited by 114
- 2021Vulnerability Detection with Fine-grained Interpretationscited by 56
- 2023How Effective Are Neural Networks for Fixing Security Vulnerabilitiescited by 52
- 2023A New Era in Software Security: Towards Self-Healing Software via Large Language Models and Formal Verificationcited by 42
- 2019Getafix: Learning to Fix Bugs Automaticallycited by 41
- 2022LineVD: Statement-level Vulnerability Detection using Graph Neural Networkscited by 35
- 2021Trust Enhancement Issues in Program Repaircited by 22
- 2020On the Efficiency of Test Suite based Program Repair: A Systematic Assessment of 16 Automated Repair Systems for Java Programscited by 16
- 2020SeqTrans: Automatic Vulnerability Fix via Sequence to Sequence Learningcited by 11
- 2023Vulnerability Detection with Graph Simplification and Enhanced Graph Representation Learningcited by 8
- 2023Code-centric Learning-based Just-In-Time Vulnerability Detectioncited by 8
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 1.
1 paper.