One-for-All Does Not Work! Enhancing Vulnerability Detection by Mixture-of-Experts (MoE)
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Deep Learning-based Vulnerability Detection (DLVD) techniques have garnered significant interest due to their ability to automatically learn vulnerability patterns from previously compromised code. Despite the notable accuracy demonstrated by pioneering tools, the broader application of DLVD methods in real-world scenarios is hindered by significant challenges. A primary issue is the “one-for-all” design, where a single model is trained to handle all types of vulnerabilities. This approach fails to capture the patterns of different vulnerability types, resulting in suboptimal performance, particularly for less common vulnerabilities that are often underrepresented in training datasets. To address these challenges, we propose MoEVD, which adopts the Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) framework for vulnerability detection. MoEVD decomposes vulnerability detection into two tasks, CWE type classification and CWE-specific vulnerability detection. By splitting the task, in vulnerability detection, MoEVD allows specific experts to handle distinct types of vulnerabilities instead of handling all vulnerabilities within one model. Our results show that MoEVD achieves an F1-score of 0.44, significantly outperforming all studied state-of-the-art (SOTA) baselines by at least 12.8%. MoEVD excels across almost all CWE types, improving recall over the best SOTA baseline by 9% to 77.8%. Notably, MoEVD does not sacrifice performance on long-tailed CWE types; instead, its MoE design enhances performance (F1-score) on these by at least 7.3%, addressing long-tailed issues effectively.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it