Papers › Automatic Data Labeling for Software Vulnerability Prediction Models: How Far Are We?
Automatic Data Labeling for Software Vulnerability Prediction Models: How Far Are We?
Triet H. M. Le, M. Ali Babar
Background: Software Vulnerability (SV) prediction needs large-sized and high-quality data to perform well. Current SV datasets mostly require expensive labeling efforts by experts (human-labeled) and thus are limited in size. Meanwhile, there are growing efforts in automatic SV labeling at scale. However, the fitness of auto-labeled data for SV prediction is still largely unknown. Aims: We quantitatively and qualitatively study the quality and use of the state-of-the-art auto-labeled SV data, D2A, for SV prediction. Method: Using multiple sources and manual validation, we curate clean SV data from human-labeled SV-fixing commits in two well-known projects for investigating the auto-labeled counterparts. Results: We discover that 50+% of the auto-labeled SVs are noisy (incorrectly labeled), and they hardly overlap with the publicly reported ones. Yet, SV prediction models utilizing the noisy auto-labeled SVs can perform up to 22% and 90% better in Matthews Correlation Coefficient and Recall, respectively, than the original models. We also reveal the promises and difficulties of applying noise-reduction methods for automatically addressing the noise in auto-labeled SV data to maximize the data utilization for SV prediction. Conclusions: Our study informs the benefits and challenges of using auto-labeled SVs, paving the way for large-scale SV prediction.
Code
Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.
Tasks
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections