Towards Explainable Vulnerability Detection With Large Language Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Software vulnerabilities pose significant risks to the security and integrity of software systems. Although prior studies have explored vulnerability detection using deep learning and pre-trained models, these approaches often fail to provide the detailed explanations necessary for developers to understand and remediate vulnerabilities effectively. The advent of large language models (LLMs) has introduced transformative potential due to their advanced generative capabilities and ability to comprehend complex contexts, offering new possibilities for addressing these challenges. In this paper, we propose LLMVulExp, an automated framework designed to specialize LLMs for the dual tasks of vulnerability detection and explanation. To address the challenges of acquiring high-quality annotated data and injecting domain-specific knowledge, LLMVulExp leverages prompt-based techniques for annotating vulnerability explanations and fine-tunes LLMs using instruction tuning with Low-Rank Adaptation (LoRA), enabling LLMVulExp to detect vulnerability types in code while generating detailed explanations, including the cause, location, and repair suggestions. Additionally, we employ a Chain-of-Thought (CoT) based key code extraction strategy to focus LLMs on analyzing vulnerability-prone code, further enhancing detection accuracy and explanatory depth.We conducted experiments across multiple vulnerability detection settings on three benchmark datasets, demonstrating the effectiveness of our method. This study highlights the feasibility of utilizing LLMs for real-world vulnerability detection and explanation tasks, providing critical insights into their adaptation and application in software security.
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 | 0.003 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".