A catalog of metrics at source code level for vulnerability prediction: A systematic mapping study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Industry practitioners assess software from a security perspective to reduce the risks of deploying vulnerable software. Besides following security best practice guidelines during the software development life cycle, predicting vulnerability before roll‐out is crucial. Software metrics are popular inputs for vulnerability prediction models. The objective of this study is to provide a comprehensive review of the source code‐level security metrics presented in the literature. Our systematic mapping study started with 1451 studies obtained by searching the four digital libraries from ACM, IEEE, ScienceDirect, and Springer. After applying our inclusion/exclusion criteria as well as the snowballing technique, we narrowed down 28 studies for an in‐depth study to answer four research questions pertaining to our goal. We extracted a total of 685 code‐level metrics. For each study, we identified the empirical methods, quality measures, types of vulnerabilities of the prediction models, and shortcomings of the work. We found that standard machine learning models, such as decision trees, regressions, and random forests, are most frequently used for vulnerability prediction. The most common quality measures are precision, recall, accuracy, and ‐measure. Based on our findings, we conclude that the list of software metrics for measuring code‐level security is not universal or generic yet. Nonetheless, the results of our study can be used as a starting point for future studies aiming at improving existing security prediction models and a catalog of metrics for vulnerability prediction for software practitioners.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.036 | 0.139 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.063 | 0.040 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".