arXiv subjects

Cristina Improta

Publications and source records attributed to Cristina Improta.

12 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

What Makes Software Bugs Escape Testing? Evidence from a Large-Scale Empirical Study

Understanding how software defects manifest and evolve in production environments is critical for improving reliability. While previous research has largely focused on pre-release defects, the nature of residual faults, i.e., those escaping testing and surfacing post-release, remains poorly understood. This paper presents a large-scale characterization of pre- and post-release defects across C/C++ and Java systems, encompassing over 14k defects mined from open-source projects. We employ a broad suite of software metrics to capture diverse code attributes such as complexity, size, structure, and development history. Results show that post-release defects are concentrated in older, frequently modified, and high-churn components, typically requiring longer and more complex fixes than pre-release ones. These findings highlight that residual defects arise more from evolutionary and process dynamics than code structure alone, suggesting that reliability engineering should prioritize targeted testing in mature and complex code regions.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2025

Human-Written vs. AI-Generated Code: A Large-Scale Study of Defects, Vulnerabilities, and Complexity

As AI code assistants become increasingly integrated into software development workflows, understanding how their code compares to human-written programs is critical for ensuring reliability, maintainability, and security. In this paper, we present a large-scale comparison of code authored by human developers and three state-of-the-art LLMs, i.e., ChatGPT, DeepSeek-Coder, and Qwen-Coder, on multiple dimensions of software quality: code defects, security vulnerabilities, and structural complexity. Our evaluation spans over 500k code samples in two widely used languages, Python and Java, classifying defects via Orthogonal Defect Classification and security vulnerabilities using the Common Weakness Enumeration. We find that AI-generated code is generally simpler and more repetitive, yet more prone to unused constructs and hardcoded debugging, while human-written code exhibits greater structural complexity and a higher concentration of maintainability issues. Notably, AI-generated code also contains more high-risk security vulnerabilities. These findings highlight the distinct defect profiles of AI- and human-authored code and underscore the need for specialized quality assurance practices in AI-assisted programming.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2025

Detecting Stealthy Data Poisoning Attacks in AI Code Generators

Deep learning (DL) models for natural language-to-code generation have become integral to modern software development pipelines. However, their heavy reliance on large amounts of data, often collected from unsanitized online sources, exposes them to data poisoning attacks, where adversaries inject malicious samples to subtly bias model behavior. Recent targeted attacks silently replace secure code with semantically equivalent but vulnerable implementations without relying on explicit triggers to launch the attack, making it especially hard for detection methods to distinguish clean from poisoned samples. We present a systematic study on the effectiveness of existing poisoning detection methods under this stealthy threat model. Specifically, we perform targeted poisoning on three DL models (CodeBERT, CodeT5+, AST-T5), and evaluate spectral signatures analysis, activation clustering, and static analysis as defenses. Our results show that all methods struggle to detect triggerless poisoning, with representation-based approaches failing to isolate poisoned samples and static analysis suffering false positives and false negatives, highlighting the need for more robust, trigger-independent defenses for AI-assisted code generation.

cs.CR↗

arXiv2025

Quality In, Quality Out: Investigating Training Data's Role in AI Code Generation

Deep Learning-based code generators have seen significant advancements in recent years. Tools such as GitHub Copilot are used by thousands of developers with the main promise of a boost in productivity. However, researchers have recently questioned their impact on code quality showing, for example, that code generated by DL-based tools may be affected by security vulnerabilities. Since DL models are trained on large code corpora, one may conjecture that low-quality code they output is the result of low-quality code they have seen during training. However, there is very little empirical evidence documenting this phenomenon. Indeed, most of previous work look at the frequency with which commercial code generators recommend low-quality code without the possibility of relating this to their training set. We investigate the extent to which low-quality code instances seen during training affect the quality of the code generated at inference time. We start by fine-tuning a pre-trained DL model on a large-scale dataset being representative of those usually adopted in the training of code generators. We show that 4.98% of functions in this dataset exhibit one or more quality issues related to security, maintainability, best practices, etc. We use the fine-tuned model to generate 551k Python functions, showing that 5.85% of them are affected by at least one quality issue. We then remove from the training set the low-quality functions, and use the cleaned dataset to fine-tune a second model which has been used to generate the same 551k Python functions. We show that the model trained on the cleaned dataset exhibits similar performance in terms of functional correctness as compared to the original model while, however, generating a statistically significant lower number of low-quality functions (2.16%). Our study empirically documents the importance of high-quality training data for code generators.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2024

Enhancing Robustness of AI Offensive Code Generators via Data Augmentation

Since manually writing software exploits for offensive security is time-consuming and requires expert knowledge, AI-base code generators are an attractive solution to enhance security analysts' productivity by automatically crafting exploits for security testing. However, the variability in the natural language and technical skills used to describe offensive code poses unique challenges to their robustness and applicability. In this work, we present a method to add perturbations to the code descriptions to create new inputs in natural language (NL) from well-intentioned developers that diverge from the original ones due to the use of new words or because they miss part of them. The goal is to analyze how and to what extent perturbations affect the performance of AI code generators in the context of offensive code. First, we show that perturbed descriptions preserve the semantics of the original, non-perturbed ones. Then, we use the method to assess the robustness of three state-of-the-art code generators against the newly perturbed inputs, showing that the performance of these AI-based solutions is highly affected by perturbations in the NL descriptions. To enhance their robustness, we use the method to perform data augmentation, i.e., to increase the variability and diversity of the NL descriptions in the training data, proving its effectiveness against both perturbed and non-perturbed code descriptions.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2024

Enhancing AI-based Generation of Software Exploits with Contextual Information

This practical experience report explores Neural Machine Translation (NMT) models' capability to generate offensive security code from natural language (NL) descriptions, highlighting the significance of contextual understanding and its impact on model performance. Our study employs a dataset comprising real shellcodes to evaluate the models across various scenarios, including missing information, necessary context, and unnecessary context. The experiments are designed to assess the models' resilience against incomplete descriptions, their proficiency in leveraging context for enhanced accuracy, and their ability to discern irrelevant information. The findings reveal that the introduction of contextual data significantly improves performance. However, the benefits of additional context diminish beyond a certain point, indicating an optimal level of contextual information for model training. Moreover, the models demonstrate an ability to filter out unnecessary context, maintaining high levels of accuracy in the generation of offensive security code. This study paves the way for future research on optimizing context use in AI-driven code generation, particularly for applications requiring a high degree of technical precision such as the generation of offensive code.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2024

Automating the Correctness Assessment of AI-generated Code for Security Contexts

Evaluating the correctness of code generated by AI is a challenging open problem. In this paper, we propose a fully automated method, named ACCA, to evaluate the correctness of AI-generated code for security purposes. The method uses symbolic execution to assess whether the AI-generated code behaves as a reference implementation. We use ACCA to assess four state-of-the-art models trained to generate security-oriented assembly code and compare the results of the evaluation with different baseline solutions, including output similarity metrics, widely used in the field, and the well-known ChatGPT, the AI-powered language model developed by OpenAI. Our experiments show that our method outperforms the baseline solutions and assesses the correctness of the AI-generated code similar to the human-based evaluation, which is considered the ground truth for the assessment in the field. Moreover, ACCA has a very strong correlation with the human evaluation (Pearson's correlation coefficient r=0.84 on average). Finally, since it is a fully automated solution that does not require any human intervention, the proposed method performs the assessment of every code snippet in ~0.17s on average, which is definitely lower than the average time required by human analysts to manually inspect the code, based on our experience.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2024

Poisoning Programs by Un-Repairing Code: Security Concerns of AI-generated Code

AI-based code generators have gained a fundamental role in assisting developers in writing software starting from natural language (NL). However, since these large language models are trained on massive volumes of data collected from unreliable online sources (e.g., GitHub, Hugging Face), AI models become an easy target for data poisoning attacks, in which an attacker corrupts the training data by injecting a small amount of poison into it, i.e., astutely crafted malicious samples. In this position paper, we address the security of AI code generators by identifying a novel data poisoning attack that results in the generation of vulnerable code. Next, we devise an extensive evaluation of how these attacks impact state-of-the-art models for code generation. Lastly, we discuss potential solutions to overcome this threat.

cs.CR↗

arXiv2024

Vulnerabilities in AI Code Generators: Exploring Targeted Data Poisoning Attacks

AI-based code generators have become pivotal in assisting developers in writing software starting from natural language (NL). However, they are trained on large amounts of data, often collected from unsanitized online sources (e.g., GitHub, HuggingFace). As a consequence, AI models become an easy target for data poisoning, i.e., an attack that injects malicious samples into the training data to generate vulnerable code. To address this threat, this work investigates the security of AI code generators by devising a targeted data poisoning strategy. We poison the training data by injecting increasing amounts of code containing security vulnerabilities and assess the attack's success on different state-of-the-art models for code generation. Our study shows that AI code generators are vulnerable to even a small amount of poison. Notably, the attack success strongly depends on the model architecture and poisoning rate, whereas it is not influenced by the type of vulnerabilities. Moreover, since the attack does not impact the correctness of code generated by pre-trained models, it is hard to detect. Lastly, our work offers practical insights into understanding and potentially mitigating this threat.

cs.CR↗

arXiv2024

AI Code Generators for Security: Friend or Foe?

Recent advances of artificial intelligence (AI) code generators are opening new opportunities in software security research, including misuse by malicious actors. We review use cases for AI code generators for security and introduce an evaluation benchmark.

cs.CR↗

arXiv2023

Who Evaluates the Evaluators? On Automatic Metrics for Assessing AI-based Offensive Code Generators

AI-based code generators are an emerging solution for automatically writing programs starting from descriptions in natural language, by using deep neural networks (Neural Machine Translation, NMT). In particular, code generators have been used for ethical hacking and offensive security testing by generating proof-of-concept attacks. Unfortunately, the evaluation of code generators still faces several issues. The current practice uses output similarity metrics, i.e., automatic metrics that compute the textual similarity of generated code with ground-truth references. However, it is not clear what metric to use, and which metric is most suitable for specific contexts. This work analyzes a large set of output similarity metrics on offensive code generators. We apply the metrics on two state-of-the-art NMT models using two datasets containing offensive assembly and Python code with their descriptions in the English language. We compare the estimates from the automatic metrics with human evaluation and provide practical insights into their strengths and limitations.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2022

Can NMT Understand Me? Towards Perturbation-based Evaluation of NMT Models for Code Generation

Neural Machine Translation (NMT) has reached a level of maturity to be recognized as the premier method for the translation between different languages and aroused interest in different research areas, including software engineering. A key step to validate the robustness of the NMT models consists in evaluating the performance of the models on adversarial inputs, i.e., inputs obtained from the original ones by adding small amounts of perturbation. However, when dealing with the specific task of the code generation (i.e., the generation of code starting from a description in natural language), it has not yet been defined an approach to validate the robustness of the NMT models. In this work, we address the problem by identifying a set of perturbations and metrics tailored for the robustness assessment of such models. We present a preliminary experimental evaluation, showing what type of perturbations affect the model the most and deriving useful insights for future directions.

cs.CL↗