Showing 1–7 of 7 results for author: Majdinasab, V

DeepCodeProbe: Towards Understanding What Models Trained on Code Learn

Authors: Vahid Majdinasab, Amin Nikanjam, Foutse Khomh

Abstract: Machine learning models trained on code and related artifacts offer valuable support for software maintenance but suffer from interpretability issues due to their complex internal variables. These concerns are particularly significant in safety-critical applications where the models' decision-making processes must be reliable. The specific features and representations learned by these models remai… ▽ More Machine learning models trained on code and related artifacts offer valuable support for software maintenance but suffer from interpretability issues due to their complex internal variables. These concerns are particularly significant in safety-critical applications where the models' decision-making processes must be reliable. The specific features and representations learned by these models remain unclear, adding to the hesitancy in adopting them widely. To address these challenges, we introduce DeepCodeProbe, a probing approach that examines the syntax and representation learning abilities of ML models designed for software maintenance tasks. Our study applies DeepCodeProbe to state-of-the-art models for code clone detection, code summarization, and comment generation. Findings reveal that while small models capture abstract syntactic representations, their ability to fully grasp programming language syntax is limited. Increasing model capacity improves syntax learning but introduces trade-offs such as increased training time and overfitting. DeepCodeProbe also identifies specific code patterns the models learn from their training data. Additionally, we provide best practices for training models on code to enhance performance and interpretability, supported by an open-source replication package for broader application of DeepCodeProbe in interpreting other code-related models. △ Less

Submitted 11 July, 2024; originally announced July 2024.

ACM Class: I.2.5; D.2.3

Trained Without My Consent: Detecting Code Inclusion In Language Models Trained on Code

Authors: Vahid Majdinasab, Amin Nikanjam, Foutse Khomh

Abstract: Code auditing ensures that the developed code adheres to standards, regulations, and copyright protection by verifying that it does not contain code from protected sources. The recent advent of Large Language Models (LLMs) as coding assistants in the software development process poses new challenges for code auditing. The dataset for training these models is mainly collected from publicly availabl… ▽ More Code auditing ensures that the developed code adheres to standards, regulations, and copyright protection by verifying that it does not contain code from protected sources. The recent advent of Large Language Models (LLMs) as coding assistants in the software development process poses new challenges for code auditing. The dataset for training these models is mainly collected from publicly available sources. This raises the issue of intellectual property infringement as developers' codes are already included in the dataset. Therefore, auditing code developed using LLMs is challenging, as it is difficult to reliably assert if an LLM used during development has been trained on specific copyrighted codes, given that we do not have access to the training datasets of these models. Given the non-disclosure of the training datasets, traditional approaches such as code clone detection are insufficient for asserting copyright infringement. To address this challenge, we propose a new approach, TraWiC; a model-agnostic and interpretable method based on membership inference for detecting code inclusion in an LLM's training dataset. We extract syntactic and semantic identifiers unique to each program to train a classifier for detecting code inclusion. In our experiments, we observe that TraWiC is capable of detecting 83.87% of codes that were used to train an LLM. In comparison, the prevalent clone detection tool NiCad is only capable of detecting 47.64%. In addition to its remarkable performance, TraWiC has low resource overhead in contrast to pair-wise clone detection that is conducted during the auditing process of tools like CodeWhisperer reference tracker, across thousands of code snippets. △ Less

Submitted 14 February, 2024; originally announced February 2024.

Comments: Submitted to TOSEM (ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology)

Assessing the Security of GitHub Copilot Generated Code -- A Targeted Replication Study

Authors: Vahid Majdinasab, Michael Joshua Bishop, Shawn Rasheed, Arghavan Moradidakhel, Amjed Tahir, Foutse Khomh

Abstract: AI-powered code generation models have been developing rapidly, allowing developers to expedite code generation and thus improve their productivity. These models are trained on large corpora of code (primarily sourced from public repositories), which may contain bugs and vulnerabilities. Several concerns have been raised about the security of the code generated by these models. Recent studies have… ▽ More AI-powered code generation models have been developing rapidly, allowing developers to expedite code generation and thus improve their productivity. These models are trained on large corpora of code (primarily sourced from public repositories), which may contain bugs and vulnerabilities. Several concerns have been raised about the security of the code generated by these models. Recent studies have investigated security issues in AI-powered code generation tools such as GitHub Copilot and Amazon CodeWhisperer, revealing several security weaknesses in the code generated by these tools. As these tools evolve, it is expected that they will improve their security protocols to prevent the suggestion of insecure code to developers. This paper replicates the study of Pearce et al., which investigated security weaknesses in Copilot and uncovered several weaknesses in the code suggested by Copilot across diverse scenarios and languages (Python, C and Verilog). Our replication examines Copilot security weaknesses using newer versions of Copilot and CodeQL (the security analysis framework). The replication focused on the presence of security vulnerabilities in Python code. Our results indicate that, even with the improvements in newer versions of Copilot, the percentage of vulnerable code suggestions has reduced from 36.54% to 27.25%. Nonetheless, it remains evident that the model still suggests insecure code. △ Less

Submitted 18 November, 2023; originally announced November 2023.

Effective Test Generation Using Pre-trained Large Language Models and Mutation Testing

Authors: Arghavan Moradi Dakhel, Amin Nikanjam, Vahid Majdinasab, Foutse Khomh, Michel C. Desmarais

Abstract: One of the critical phases in software development is software testing. Testing helps with identifying potential bugs and reducing maintenance costs. The goal of automated test generation tools is to ease the development of tests by suggesting efficient bug-revealing tests. Recently, researchers have leveraged Large Language Models (LLMs) of code to generate unit tests. While the code coverage of… ▽ More One of the critical phases in software development is software testing. Testing helps with identifying potential bugs and reducing maintenance costs. The goal of automated test generation tools is to ease the development of tests by suggesting efficient bug-revealing tests. Recently, researchers have leveraged Large Language Models (LLMs) of code to generate unit tests. While the code coverage of generated tests was usually assessed, the literature has acknowledged that the coverage is weakly correlated with the efficiency of tests in bug detection. To improve over this limitation, in this paper, we introduce MuTAP for improving the effectiveness of test cases generated by LLMs in terms of revealing bugs by leveraging mutation testing. Our goal is achieved by augmenting prompts with surviving mutants, as those mutants highlight the limitations of test cases in detecting bugs. MuTAP is capable of generating effective test cases in the absence of natural language descriptions of the Program Under Test (PUTs). We employ different LLMs within MuTAP and evaluate their performance on different benchmarks. Our results show that our proposed method is able to detect up to 28% more faulty human-written code snippets. Among these, 17% remained undetected by both the current state-of-the-art fully automated test generation tool (i.e., Pynguin) and zero-shot/few-shot learning approaches on LLMs. Furthermore, MuTAP achieves a Mutation Score (MS) of 93.57% on synthetic buggy code, outperforming all other approaches in our evaluation. Our findings suggest that although LLMs can serve as a useful tool to generate test cases, they require specific post-processing steps to enhance the effectiveness of the generated test cases which may suffer from syntactic or functional errors and may be ineffective in detecting certain types of bugs and testing corner cases PUTs. △ Less

Submitted 31 August, 2023; originally announced August 2023.

Comments: 16 pages, 3 figures

An Empirical Study on Bugs Inside PyTorch: A Replication Study

Authors: Sharon Chee Yin Ho, Vahid Majdinasab, Mohayeminul Islam, Diego Elias Costa, Emad Shihab, Foutse Khomh, Sarah Nadi, Muhammad Raza

Abstract: Software systems are increasingly relying on deep learning components, due to their remarkable capability of identifying complex data patterns and powering intelligent behaviour. A core enabler of this change in software development is the availability of easy-to-use deep learning libraries. Libraries like PyTorch and TensorFlow empower a large variety of intelligent systems, offering a multitude… ▽ More Software systems are increasingly relying on deep learning components, due to their remarkable capability of identifying complex data patterns and powering intelligent behaviour. A core enabler of this change in software development is the availability of easy-to-use deep learning libraries. Libraries like PyTorch and TensorFlow empower a large variety of intelligent systems, offering a multitude of algorithms and configuration options, applicable to numerous domains of systems. However, bugs in those popular deep learning libraries also may have dire consequences for the quality of systems they enable; thus, it is important to understand how bugs are identified and fixed in those libraries. Inspired by a study of Jia et al., which investigates the bug identification and fixing process at TensorFlow, we characterize bugs in the PyTorch library, a very popular deep learning framework. We investigate the causes and symptoms of bugs identified during PyTorch's development, and assess their locality within the project, and extract patterns of bug fixes. Our results highlight that PyTorch bugs are more like traditional software projects bugs, than related to deep learning characteristics. Finally, we also compare our results with the study on TensorFlow, highlighting similarities and differences across the bug identification and fixing process. △ Less

Submitted 1 August, 2023; v1 submitted 25 July, 2023; originally announced July 2023.

Mutation Testing of Deep Reinforcement Learning Based on Real Faults

Authors: Florian Tambon, Vahid Majdinasab, Amin Nikanjam, Foutse Khomh, Giuliano Antonio

Abstract: Testing Deep Learning (DL) systems is a complex task as they do not behave like traditional systems would, notably because of their stochastic nature. Nonetheless, being able to adapt existing testing techniques such as Mutation Testing (MT) to DL settings would greatly improve their potential verifiability. While some efforts have been made to extend MT to the Supervised Learning paradigm, little… ▽ More Testing Deep Learning (DL) systems is a complex task as they do not behave like traditional systems would, notably because of their stochastic nature. Nonetheless, being able to adapt existing testing techniques such as Mutation Testing (MT) to DL settings would greatly improve their potential verifiability. While some efforts have been made to extend MT to the Supervised Learning paradigm, little work has gone into extending it to Reinforcement Learning (RL) which is also an important component of the DL ecosystem but behaves very differently from SL. This paper builds on the existing approach of MT in order to propose a framework, RLMutation, for MT applied to RL. Notably, we use existing taxonomies of faults to build a set of mutation operators relevant to RL and use a simple heuristic to generate test cases for RL. This allows us to compare different mutation killing definitions based on existing approaches, as well as to analyze the behavior of the obtained mutation operators and their potential combinations called Higher Order Mutation(s) (HOM). We show that the design choice of the mutation killing definition can affect whether or not a mutation is killed as well as the generated test cases. Moreover, we found that even with a relatively small number of test cases and operators we manage to generate HOM with interesting properties which can enhance testing capability in RL systems. △ Less

Submitted 13 January, 2023; originally announced January 2023.

Comments: Accepted to the International Conference of Software Testing (ICST2023)

GitHub Copilot AI pair programmer: Asset or Liability?

Authors: Arghavan Moradi Dakhel, Vahid Majdinasab, Amin Nikanjam, Foutse Khomh, Michel C. Desmarais, Zhen Ming, Jiang

Abstract: Automatic program synthesis is a long-lasting dream in software engineering. Recently, a promising Deep Learning (DL) based solution, called Copilot, has been proposed by OpenAI and Microsoft as an industrial product. Although some studies evaluate the correctness of Copilot solutions and report its issues, more empirical evaluations are necessary to understand how developers can benefit from it e… ▽ More Automatic program synthesis is a long-lasting dream in software engineering. Recently, a promising Deep Learning (DL) based solution, called Copilot, has been proposed by OpenAI and Microsoft as an industrial product. Although some studies evaluate the correctness of Copilot solutions and report its issues, more empirical evaluations are necessary to understand how developers can benefit from it effectively. In this paper, we study the capabilities of Copilot in two different programming tasks: (i) generating (and reproducing) correct and efficient solutions for fundamental algorithmic problems, and (ii) comparing Copilot's proposed solutions with those of human programmers on a set of programming tasks. For the former, we assess the performance and functionality of Copilot in solving selected fundamental problems in computer science, like sorting and implementing data structures. In the latter, a dataset of programming problems with human-provided solutions is used. The results show that Copilot is capable of providing solutions for almost all fundamental algorithmic problems, however, some solutions are buggy and non-reproducible. Moreover, Copilot has some difficulties in combining multiple methods to generate a solution. Comparing Copilot to humans, our results show that the correct ratio of humans' solutions is greater than Copilot's suggestions, while the buggy solutions generated by Copilot require less effort to be repaired. △ Less

Submitted 14 April, 2023; v1 submitted 30 June, 2022; originally announced June 2022.

Comments: 27 pages, 8 figures