Towards Robustness of Deep Program Processing Models—Detection, Estimation, and Enhancement
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 (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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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