pith. sign in

arxiv: 1908.10711 · v2 · pith:KJWYTFTKnew · submitted 2019-08-25 · 💻 cs.LG · cs.PL· cs.SE· stat.ML

Testing Neural Program Analyzers

classification 💻 cs.LG cs.PLcs.SEstat.ML
keywords neuralprogrammodelanalyzersmakepredictionprogramsreliability
0
0 comments X
read the original abstract

Deep neural networks have been increasingly used in software engineering and program analysis tasks. They usually take a program and make some predictions about it, e.g., bug prediction. We call these models neural program analyzers. The reliability of neural programs can impact the reliability of the encompassing analyses. In this paper, we describe our ongoing efforts to develop effective techniques for testing neural programs. We discuss the challenges involved in developing such tools and our future plans. In our preliminary experiment on a neural model recently proposed in the literature, we found that the model is very brittle, and simple perturbations in the input can cause the model to make mistakes in its prediction.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. HEJ-Robust: A Robustness Benchmark for LLM-Based Automated Program Repair

    cs.SE 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    HEJ-Robust benchmark shows LLM-based program repair models drop over 50% in accuracy when buggy code is rewritten with equivalent syntax.

  2. HEJ-Robust: A Robustness Benchmark for LLM-Based Automated Program Repair

    cs.SE 2026-05 accept novelty 7.0

    LLM-based Java program repair models lose over 50% of their bug-fixing success rate when presented with equivalent but syntactically varied buggy code.