---
license: apache-2.0
library_name: transformers
base_model: huggingface/CodeBERTa-small-v1
tags:
- security
- vulnerability-detection
- code-analysis
- multi-label-classification
- graphcodebert
- owasp
- cwe
- static-analysis
language:
- en
- code
pipeline_tag: text-classification
datasets:
- ayshajavd/code-security-vulnerability-dataset
- bstee615/bigvul
- CyberNative/Code_Vulnerability_Security_DPO
- lemon42-ai/Code_Vulnerability_Labeled_Dataset
model-index:
- name: graphcodebert-vuln-classifier
  results:
  - task:
      type: text-classification
      name: Multi-label Vulnerability Classification
    dataset:
      type: ayshajavd/code-security-vulnerability-dataset
      name: Code Security Vulnerability Dataset
      split: test
    metrics:
    - type: f1
      value: 0.8648
      name: Weighted F1
    - type: f1
      value: 0.4575
      name: Micro F1
    - type: f1
      value: 0.9501
      name: F1 (safe class)
    - type: recall
      value: 0.5018
      name: Macro Recall
---

# GraphCodeBERT Vulnerability Classifier

A multi-label code vulnerability detection model that identifies **31 vulnerability classes** (30 CWEs + safe) mapped to the **OWASP Top 10 2021** categories. Fine-tuned from [CodeBERTa-small-v1](https://huggingface.co/huggingface/CodeBERTa-small-v1) on 175K+ labeled code samples.

## Quick Start

```python
import torch
from transformers import AutoTokenizer, AutoModelForSequenceClassification

model_id = "ayshajavd/graphcodebert-vuln-classifier"
tokenizer = AutoTokenizer.from_pretrained(model_id)
model = AutoModelForSequenceClassification.from_pretrained(model_id)
model.eval()

code = """
import sqlite3
def get_user(username):
    query = f"SELECT * FROM users WHERE username = '{username}'"
    conn = sqlite3.connect('db.sqlite')
    return conn.execute(query).fetchone()
"""

inputs = tokenizer(code, return_tensors="pt", max_length=512, truncation=True, padding=True)
with torch.no_grad():
    logits = model(**inputs).logits
    probs = torch.sigmoid(logits).squeeze()

# Get predictions above threshold
TARGET_CWES = ["safe", "CWE-20", "CWE-22", "CWE-78", "CWE-79", "CWE-89", "CWE-94",
    "CWE-119", "CWE-125", "CWE-190", "CWE-200", "CWE-264", "CWE-269", "CWE-276",
    "CWE-284", "CWE-287", "CWE-310", "CWE-327", "CWE-330", "CWE-352", "CWE-362",
    "CWE-399", "CWE-401", "CWE-416", "CWE-434", "CWE-476", "CWE-502", "CWE-601",
    "CWE-787", "CWE-798", "CWE-918"]

threshold = 0.5
for i, (cwe, prob) in enumerate(zip(TARGET_CWES, probs)):
    if prob > threshold:
        print(f"{cwe}: {prob:.3f}")
```

## Model Details

| Property | Value |
|----------|-------|
| **Architecture** | RobertaForSequenceClassification (6 layers, 768 hidden, 83.5M params) |
| **Base Model** | [CodeBERTa-small-v1](https://huggingface.co/huggingface/CodeBERTa-small-v1) |
| **Task** | Multi-label classification (BCEWithLogitsLoss with class weights) |
| **Labels** | 31 (30 CWE categories + "safe") |
| **Max Sequence Length** | 512 tokens |
| **Recommended Threshold** | 0.5 (balanced precision/recall) or 0.3 (high recall, security-first) |

## Supported Languages

Python, JavaScript, Java, C, C++, PHP, Go

The model was trained on a diverse multi-language dataset. Performance is strongest on C/C++ (largest training subset from BigVul) and Python/JavaScript (from the multi-language datasets).

## Evaluation Results (Test Set — 5,000 samples)

### Threshold Comparison

| Threshold | Macro F1 | Micro F1 | Weighted F1 | Macro Precision | Macro Recall |
|-----------|----------|----------|-------------|-----------------|--------------|
| 0.2 | 0.066 | 0.301 | 0.859 | 0.048 | 0.562 |
| **0.3** | **0.081** | **0.458** | **0.865** | **0.057** | **0.502** |
| 0.4 | 0.101 | 0.626 | 0.870 | 0.070 | 0.439 |
| **0.5** | **0.125** | **0.739** | **0.870** | **0.088** | **0.366** |

### Per-Class Performance (threshold=0.3)

#### OWASP A01:2021 — Broken Access Control
| CWE | Name | Support | Precision | Recall | F1 |
|-----|------|---------|-----------|--------|-----|
| CWE-22 | Path Traversal | 2 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| CWE-200 | Information Exposure | 30 | 0.063 | 0.800 | 0.117 |
| CWE-264 | Permissions/Privileges | 23 | 0.025 | 0.696 | 0.049 |
| CWE-269 | Improper Privilege Mgmt | 1 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| CWE-276 | Incorrect Permissions | 0 | — | — | — |
| CWE-284 | Access Control | 5 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| CWE-352 | CSRF | 1 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| CWE-601 | Open Redirect | 0 | — | — | — |

#### OWASP A02:2021 — Cryptographic Failures
| CWE | Name | Support | Precision | Recall | F1 |
|-----|------|---------|-----------|--------|-----|
| CWE-310 | Cryptographic Issues | 5 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| CWE-327 | Broken Crypto Algorithm | 1 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| CWE-330 | Insufficient Randomness | 1 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |

#### OWASP A03:2021 — Injection
| CWE | Name | Support | Precision | Recall | F1 |
|-----|------|---------|-----------|--------|-----|
| CWE-20 | Input Validation | 69 | 0.023 | **0.957** | 0.046 |
| CWE-78 | Command Injection | 1 | 0.011 | **1.000** | 0.021 |
| CWE-79 | XSS | 16 | 0.084 | **0.750** | 0.151 |
| CWE-89 | SQL Injection | 15 | 0.096 | **1.000** | 0.174 |
| CWE-94 | Code Injection | 27 | 0.123 | **1.000** | 0.220 |
| CWE-119 | Buffer Overflow | 118 | 0.088 | **0.898** | 0.160 |
| CWE-125 | Out-of-bounds Read | 35 | 0.048 | **0.829** | 0.091 |
| CWE-190 | Integer Overflow | 14 | 0.033 | **1.000** | 0.064 |
| CWE-401 | Memory Leak | 2 | 0.022 | **1.000** | 0.044 |
| CWE-416 | Use After Free | 20 | 0.048 | 0.400 | 0.086 |
| CWE-476 | NULL Pointer Deref | 30 | 0.032 | **0.867** | 0.061 |
| CWE-787 | Out-of-bounds Write | 46 | 0.052 | **0.891** | 0.099 |

#### OWASP A04:2021 — Insecure Design
| CWE | Name | Support | Precision | Recall | F1 |
|-----|------|---------|-----------|--------|-----|
| CWE-362 | Race Condition | 11 | 0.035 | 0.636 | 0.065 |
| CWE-399 | Resource Management | 21 | 0.008 | **0.857** | 0.015 |
| CWE-434 | File Upload | 0 | — | — | — |

#### OWASP A07–A10
| CWE | Name | Support | Precision | Recall | F1 |
|-----|------|---------|-----------|--------|-----|
| CWE-287 | Authentication | 0 | — | — | — |
| CWE-798 | Hardcoded Credentials | 0 | — | — | — |
| CWE-502 | Deserialization | 10 | 0.056 | **1.000** | 0.106 |
| CWE-918 | SSRF | 0 | — | — | — |

### Key Metric: Safe Code Detection
| Class | Support | Precision | Recall | F1 |
|-------|---------|-----------|--------|-----|
| **safe** | **4,496** | **0.927** | **0.975** | **0.950** |

### Model Strengths
- **Excellent recall** on many vulnerability classes (0.75–1.0 for SQL injection, buffer overflow, XSS, code injection, etc.)
- **Strong safe code detection** (F1=0.95) — reliably identifies secure code
- **High sensitivity** — at threshold 0.3, catches most real vulnerabilities (macro recall=0.50)

### Model Limitations
- **Low precision on rare classes** — many false positives, especially on CWEs with few training examples
- Precision can be improved by using **threshold=0.5** (macro F1 improves to 0.125 but recall drops)
- Classes with 0 test support cannot be evaluated

> **Design choice:** For security applications, we prioritize recall (catching real vulnerabilities) over precision (reducing false positives). Missing a real vulnerability (false negative) is worse than flagging safe code (false positive).

## Training Data

The model was trained on the [code-security-vulnerability-dataset](https://huggingface.co/datasets/ayshajavd/code-security-vulnerability-dataset) (175,419 samples), combining:

1. **[BigVul](https://huggingface.co/datasets/bstee615/bigvul)** — 265K C/C++ vulnerable functions from real CVEs
2. **[CWE-enriched BigVul/PrimeVul](https://huggingface.co/datasets/mahdin70/cwe_enriched_balanced_bigvul_primevul)** — Balanced CWE-labeled subset  
3. **[Code Vulnerability Labeled](https://huggingface.co/datasets/lemon42-ai/Code_Vulnerability_Labeled_Dataset)** — Multi-language (Python, JS, Java, PHP, Go)
4. **[CyberNative DPO](https://huggingface.co/datasets/CyberNative/Code_Vulnerability_Security_DPO)** — Vulnerable/secure code pairs

### Training Configuration

| Parameter | Value |
|-----------|-------|
| Epochs | 2 |
| Batch Size | 8 |
| Learning Rate | 5e-5 |
| Scheduler | Cosine with warmup (50 steps) |
| Loss | BCEWithLogitsLoss (class-weighted, pos_weight clipped to 30x) |
| Training Subset | 20K balanced samples |
| Optimizer | AdamW (fused) |

## Limitations

1. **Class imbalance**: Many rare CWE types have very few training examples, leading to high false positive rates
2. **Sequence length**: Limited to 512 tokens — long functions may be truncated
3. **Language bias**: Strongest on C/C++ due to BigVul's dominance. Go and PHP performance may be lower
4. **Single-function analysis**: Analyzes individual functions, not cross-function or cross-file vulnerabilities
5. **Not a replacement**: Should complement manual review and established SAST tools (Semgrep, CodeQL, etc.)

## Interactive Demo

Try the model in our [Code Security Analyzer Space](https://huggingface.co/spaces/ayshajavd/code-security-analyzer) — paste any code and get a full security report with OWASP mapping, severity scores, attack chain analysis, and suggested fixes.

## Citation

```bibtex
@misc{graphcodebert-vuln-classifier,
  title={GraphCodeBERT Vulnerability Classifier: Multi-label CWE Detection Mapped to OWASP Top 10},
  author={ayshajavd},
  year={2025},
  url={https://huggingface.co/ayshajavd/graphcodebert-vuln-classifier}
}
```