Assessment of Software Vulnerability Contributing Factors by Model-Agnostic Explainable AI
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Software vulnerability detection aims to proactively reduce the risk to software security and reliability. Despite advancements in deep-learning-based detection, a semantic gap still remains between learned features and human-understandable vulnerability semantics. In this paper, we present an XAI-based framework to assess program code in a graph context as feature representations and their effect on code vulnerability classification into multiple Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE) types. Our XAI framework is deep-learning-model-agnostic and programming-language-neutral. We rank the feature importance of 40 syntactic constructs for each of the top 20 distributed CWE types from three datasets in Java and C++. By means of four metrics of information retrieval, we measure the similarity of human-understandable CWE types using each CWE type’s feature contribution ranking learned from XAI methods. We observe that the subtle semantic difference between CWE types occurs after the variation in neighboring features’ contribution rankings. Our study shows that the XAI explanation results have approximately 78% Top-1 to 89% Top-5 similarity hit rates and a mean average precision of 0.70 compared with the baseline of CWE similarity identified by the open community experts. Our framework allows for code vulnerability patterns to be learned and contributing factors to be assessed at the same stage.
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 | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".