Skip to content
OpenTrain AIFor AI Companies
← Back to explorer

VICBench: A Multi-Language Benchmark for Code Vulnerability Detection

Jin Lu, Xuening Han, Yang Zhong, Lin Tan, Kevin Luo, Andrew Gacek, Neha Rungta · Aug 12, 2026 · Citations: 0

Automatic Metrics
Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

How to use this page

Low trust

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Validate the evaluation procedure and quality controls in the full paper before operational use.

Evidence quality

Low

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

Evaluating security vulnerability detection tools requires benchmark datasets with vulnerability-inducing commits (VICs) - the commits that first introduce vulnerabilities into codebases. VICs are essential for determining the full range of vulnerable software versions. Existing vulnerability datasets suffer from limited programming language coverage, restricted patch complexity, and narrow project scope. Through our dual annotation by human experts and an agentic workflow, we create a benchmark - VICBench - of 100 verified VICs for 100 CVEs across 88 projects in Python, Java, and C++, covering 48 CWE types. VICBench features complex real-world vulnerability fixes averaging 38.6 lines and corresponding VICs of 252.5 lines - significantly larger than prior work. Our evaluation shows that state-of-the-art algorithms V-SZZ and LLM4SZZ achieve only 33.3%-40.1% F1, confirming that using existing approaches still entails significant manual effort. VICBench enables robust evaluation of vulnerability detection approaches.

Abstract-only analysis — low confidence

All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.

  • This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.
  • The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.
Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A benchmark-and-metrics comparison anchor.

Main weakness

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

5/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Detected

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 45%

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.

Human Feedback Types

missing

None explicit

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.

"Evaluating security vulnerability detection tools requires benchmark datasets with vulnerability-inducing commits (VICs) - the commits that first introduce vulnerabilities into codebases."

Evaluation Modes

partial

Automatic Metrics

Includes extracted eval setup.

"Evaluating security vulnerability detection tools requires benchmark datasets with vulnerability-inducing commits (VICs) - the commits that first introduce vulnerabilities into codebases."

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

No explicit QC controls found.

"Evaluating security vulnerability detection tools requires benchmark datasets with vulnerability-inducing commits (VICs) - the commits that first introduce vulnerabilities into codebases."

Benchmarks / Datasets

partial

Vicbench

Useful for quick benchmark comparison.

"Through our dual annotation by human experts and an agentic workflow, we create a benchmark - VICBench - of 100 verified VICs for 100 CVEs across 88 projects in Python, Java, and C++, covering 48 CWE types."

Reported Metrics

partial

F1

Useful for evaluation criteria comparison.

"Evaluating security vulnerability detection tools requires benchmark datasets with vulnerability-inducing commits (VICs) - the commits that first introduce vulnerabilities into codebases."

Rater Population

partial

Domain Experts

Helpful for staffing comparability.

"Through our dual annotation by human experts and an agentic workflow, we create a benchmark - VICBench - of 100 verified VICs for 100 CVEs across 88 projects in Python, Java, and C++, covering 48 CWE types."

Human Feedback Details

  • Uses human feedback: No
  • Feedback types: None
  • Rater population: Domain Experts
  • Expertise required: Coding

Evaluation Details

  • Evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics
  • Agentic eval: None
  • Quality controls: Not reported
  • Evidence quality: Low
  • Use this page as: Background context only

Protocol And Measurement Signals

Benchmarks / Datasets

Vicbench

Reported Metrics

f1

Research Brief

Metadata summary

Evaluating security vulnerability detection tools requires benchmark datasets with vulnerability-inducing commits (VICs) - the commits that first introduce vulnerabilities into codebases.

Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.

Key Takeaways

  • Evaluating security vulnerability detection tools requires benchmark datasets with vulnerability-inducing commits (VICs) - the commits that first introduce vulnerabilities into codebases.
  • VICs are essential for determining the full range of vulnerable software versions.
  • Existing vulnerability datasets suffer from limited programming language coverage, restricted patch complexity, and narrow project scope.

Researcher Actions

  • Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
  • Validate inferred eval signals (Automatic metrics) against the full paper.
  • Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

  • Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
  • Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

Recommended Queries

F1

Research Summary

Contribution Summary

  • Evaluating security vulnerability detection tools requires benchmark datasets with vulnerability-inducing commits (VICs) - the commits that first introduce vulnerabilities into codebases.
  • Through our dual annotation by human experts and an agentic workflow, we create a benchmark - VICBench - of 100 verified VICs for 100 CVEs across 88 projects in Python, Java, and C++, covering 48 CWE types.
  • Our evaluation shows that state-of-the-art algorithms V-SZZ and LLM4SZZ achieve only 33.3%-40.1% F1, confirming that using existing approaches still entails significant manual effort.

Why It Matters For Eval

  • Evaluating security vulnerability detection tools requires benchmark datasets with vulnerability-inducing commits (VICs) - the commits that first introduce vulnerabilities into codebases.
  • Our evaluation shows that state-of-the-art algorithms V-SZZ and LLM4SZZ achieve only 33.3%-40.1% F1, confirming that using existing approaches still entails significant manual effort.

Researcher Checklist

  • Gap: Human feedback protocol is explicit

    No explicit human feedback protocol detected.

  • Pass: Evaluation mode is explicit

    Detected: Automatic Metrics

  • Gap: Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Pass: Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    Detected: Vicbench

  • Pass: Metric reporting is present

    Detected: f1

Related Papers

Papers are ranked by protocol overlap, extraction signal alignment, and semantic proximity.