A Multi-Dataset Evaluation of Models for Automated Vulnerability Repair
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Software vulnerabilities pose significant security threats, requiring effective mitigation. While Automated Program Repair (APR) has advanced in fixing general bugs, vulnerability patching, a security-critical aspect of APR remains underexplored. This study investigates pre-trained language models, CodeBERT and CodeT5, for automated vulnerability patching across six datasets and four languages. We evaluate their accuracy and generalization to unknown vulnerabilities. Results show that while both models face challenges with fragmented or sparse context, CodeBERT performs comparatively better in such scenarios, whereas CodeT5 excels in capturing complex vulnerability patterns. CodeT5 also demonstrates superior scalability. Furthermore, we test fine-tuned models on both in-distribution (trained) and out-of-distribution (unseen) datasets. While fine-tuning improves in-distribution performance, models struggle to generalize to unseen data, highlighting challenges in robust vulnerability detection. This study benchmarks model performance, identifies limitations in generalization, and provides actionable insights to advance automated vulnerability patching for real-world security applications.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 17 of its 40 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 5 Jun 2025.
Builds on
17 of 40 references.
References · 17
- 2020CodeBERT: A Pre-Trained Model for Programming and Natural Languagescited by 1,310
- 2021CodeT5: Identifier-aware Unified Pre-trained Encoder-Decoder Models for Code Understanding and Generationcited by 906
- 2020GraphCodeBERT: Pre-training Code Representations with Data Flowcited by 609
- 2020CodeBLEU: a Method for Automatic Evaluation of Code Synthesiscited by 479
- 2018SequenceR: Sequence-to-Sequence Learning for End-to-End Program Repaircited by 145
- 2019TBar: Revisiting Template-based Automated Program Repaircited by 65
- 2023How Effective Are Neural Networks for Fixing Security Vulnerabilitiescited by 52
- 2018CODIT: Code Editing with Tree-Based Neural Modelscited by 40
- 2018Nopol: Automatic Repair of Conditional Statement Bugs in Java Programscited by 32
- 2023Uncovering the Limits of Machine Learning for Automatic Vulnerability Detectioncited by 30
- 2024MegaVul: A C/C++ Vulnerability Dataset with Comprehensive Code Representationcited by 27
- 2020Patching as Translation: the Data and the Metaphorcited by 18
5 more
- 2024Enhanced Automated Code Vulnerability Repair using Large Language Modelscited by 10
- 2020Learning from What We Know: How to Perform Vulnerability Prediction using Noisy Historical Datacited by 5
- 2023Impact of Log Parsing on Deep Learning-Based Anomaly Detectioncited by 4
- 2023T5APR: Empowering Automated Program Repair across Languages through Checkpoint Ensemblecited by 3
- 2023Vulnerability Mimicking Mutantscited by 2
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 1.
1 paper.