VulScribeR: Exploring RAG-based Vulnerability Augmentation with LLMs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Detecting vulnerabilities is vital for software security, yet deep learning-based vulnerability detectors (DLVD) face a data shortage, which limits their effectiveness. Data augmentation can potentially alleviate the data shortage, but augmenting vulnerable code is challenging and requires a generative solution that maintains vulnerability. Previous works have only focused on generating samples that contain single statements or specific types of vulnerabilities. Recently, large language models (LLMs) have been used to solve various code generation and comprehension tasks with inspiring results, especially when fused with retrieval augmented generation (RAG). Therefore, we propose VulScribeR , a novel LLM-based solution that leverages carefully curated prompt templates to augment vulnerable datasets. More specifically, we explore three strategies to augment both single and multi-statement vulnerabilities, with LLMs, namely Mutation, Injection, and Extension. Our extensive evaluation across four vulnerability datasets and DLVD models, using three LLMs, show that our approach beats two SOTA methods VulGen and VGX, and Random Oversampling (ROS) by 27.48%, 27.93%, and 15.41% in F1-score with 5K generated vulnerable samples on average, and 53.84%, 54.10%, 69.90%, and 40.93% with 15K generated vulnerable samples. Our approach demonstrates its feasibility for large-scale data augmentation by generating 1K samples at as cheap as US$1.88.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".