Skip to content
← Back to explorer

Automated Vulnerability Detection in Source Code Using Deep Representation Learning

C. Seas, G. Fitzpatrick, J. A. Hamilton, M. C. Carlisle · Feb 26, 2026 · Citations: 0

Abstract

Each year, software vulnerabilities are discovered, which pose significant risks of exploitation and system compromise. We present a convolutional neural network model that can successfully identify bugs in C code. We trained our model using two complementary datasets: a machine-labeled dataset created by Draper Labs using three static analyzers and the NIST SATE Juliet human-labeled dataset designed for testing static analyzers. In contrast with the work of Russell et al. on these datasets, we focus on C programs, enabling us to specialize and optimize our detection techniques for this language. After removing duplicates from the dataset, we tokenize the input into 91 token categories. The category values are converted to a binary vector to save memory. Our first convolution layer is chosen so that the entire encoding of the token is presented to the filter. We use two convolution and pooling layers followed by two fully connected layers to classify programs into either a common weakness enumeration category or as ``clean.'' We obtain higher recall than prior work by Russell et al. on this dataset when requiring high precision. We also demonstrate on a custom Linux kernel dataset that we are able to find real vulnerabilities in complex code with a low false-positive rate.

HFEPX Relevance Assessment

This paper appears adjacent to HFEPX scope (human-feedback/eval), but does not show strong direct protocol evidence in metadata/abstract.

Eval-Fit Score

0/100 • Low

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

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Weak / implicit signal

HFEPX Fit

Adjacent candidate

Human Data Lens

  • Uses human feedback: No
  • Feedback types: None
  • Rater population: Unknown
  • Unit of annotation: Unknown
  • Expertise required: Coding
  • Extraction source: Runtime deterministic fallback

Evaluation Lens

  • Evaluation modes:
  • Agentic eval: None
  • Quality controls: Not reported
  • Confidence: 0.20
  • Flags: low_signal, possible_false_positive, runtime_fallback_extraction

Protocol And Measurement Signals

Benchmarks / Datasets

No benchmark or dataset names were extracted from the available abstract.

Reported Metrics

precisionrecall

Research Brief

Deterministic synthesis

We present a convolutional neural network model that can successfully identify bugs in C code. HFEPX protocol signal is limited in abstract-level metadata, so treat it as adjacent context. Updated from current HFEPX corpus.

Generated Mar 2, 2026, 10:33 PM · Grounded in abstract + metadata only

Key Takeaways

  • We present a convolutional neural network model that can successfully identify bugs in C code.
  • We trained our model using two complementary datasets: a machine-labeled dataset created by Draper Labs using three static analyzers and the NIST SATE Juliet human-labeled dataset…

Researcher Actions

  • Treat this as method context, then pivot to protocol-specific HFEPX hubs.
  • Identify benchmark choices from full text before operationalizing conclusions.
  • Validate metric comparability (precision, recall).

Caveats

  • Generated from title, abstract, and extracted metadata only; full-paper implementation details are not parsed.
  • Low-signal flag detected: protocol relevance may be indirect.

Research Summary

Contribution Summary

  • We present a convolutional neural network model that can successfully identify bugs in C code.
  • We trained our model using two complementary datasets: a machine-labeled dataset created by Draper Labs using three static analyzers and the NIST SATE Juliet human-labeled dataset designed for testing static analyzers.

Why It Matters For Eval

  • We trained our model using two complementary datasets: a machine-labeled dataset created by Draper Labs using three static analyzers and the NIST SATE Juliet human-labeled dataset designed for testing static analyzers.

Researcher Checklist

  • Gap: Human feedback protocol is explicit

    No explicit human feedback protocol detected.

  • Gap: Evaluation mode is explicit

    No clear evaluation mode extracted.

  • Gap: Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Gap: Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    No benchmark/dataset anchor extracted from abstract.

  • Pass: Metric reporting is present

    Detected: precision, recall

Category-Adjacent Papers (Broader Context)

These papers are nearby in arXiv category and useful for broader context, but not necessarily protocol-matched to this paper.

Need human evaluators for your AI research? Scale annotation with expert AI Trainers.