Towards Robustness of Deep Program Processing Models—Detection, Estimation, and Enhancement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Deep learning (DL) has recently been widely applied to diverse source code processing tasks in the software engineering (SE) community, which achieves competitive performance (e.g., accuracy). However, the robustness, which requires the model to produce consistent decisions given minorly perturbed code inputs, still lacks systematic investigation as an important quality indicator. This article initiates an early step and proposes a framework CARROT for robustness detection, measurement, and enhancement of DL models for source code processing. We first propose an optimization-based attack technique CARROT A to generate valid adversarial source code examples effectively and efficiently. Based on this, we define the robustness metrics and propose robustness measurement toolkit CARROT M , which employs the worst-case performance approximation under the allowable perturbations. We further propose to improve the robustness of the DL models by adversarial training (CARROT T ) with our proposed attack techniques. Our in-depth evaluations on three source code processing tasks (i.e., functionality classification, code clone detection, defect prediction) containing more than 3 million lines of code and the classic or SOTA DL models, including GRU, LSTM, ASTNN, LSCNN, TBCNN, CodeBERT, and CDLH, demonstrate the usefulness of our techniques for ❶ effective and efficient adversarial example detection, ❷ tight robustness estimation, and ❸ effective robustness enhancement.
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 | 0.005 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".