arXiv subjects

Jacques Klein

Publications and source records attributed to Jacques Klein.

At least 55 records · Page 3Linked to original sources

arXiv2026

Large-scale, Independent and Comprehensive study of the power of LLMs for test case generation

Unit testing is essential for software reliability, yet manual test creation is time-consuming and often neglected. Search-based software testing improves efficiency but produces tests with poor readability and maintainability, while LLMs show promise but lack comprehensive evaluation across reasoning-based prompting and real-world scenarios. This study presents the first large-scale empirical evaluation of LLM-generated unit tests at the full class level, analyzing four models (GPT-3.5, GPT-4, Mistral 7B, and Mixtral 8x7B) against EvoSuite across 216,300 test cases targeting Defects4J, SF110, and CMD. We evaluate five prompting techniques, ZSL, FSL, CoT, ToT, and GToT, assessing compilability, hallucination-driven failures, readability, coverage, and test smells. Reasoning-based prompting, particularly GToT, significantly enhances reliability and compilability, yet hallucination-driven failures remain persistent, with compilation failure rates reaching 86%. While LLM-generated tests are generally more readable than SBST outputs, recurring issues such as Magic Number Tests and Assertion Roulette hinder maintainability. These findings suggest that hybrid approaches combining LLM-based generation with automated validation and search-based refinement are necessary for production-ready results.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

Do Large Language Models Grasp The Grammar? Evidence from Grammar-Book-Guided Probing in Luxembourgish

Grammar refers to the system of rules that governs the structural organization and the semantic relations among linguistic units such as sentences, phrases, and words within a given language. In natural language processing, there remains a notable scarcity of grammar focused evaluation protocols, a gap that is even more pronounced for low-resource languages. Moreover, the extent to which large language models genuinely comprehend grammatical structure, especially the mapping between syntactic structures and meanings, remains under debate. To investigate this issue, we propose a Grammar Book Guided evaluation pipeline intended to provide a systematic and generalizable framework for grammar evaluation consisting of four key stages, and in this work we take Luxembourgish as a case study. The results show a weak positive correlation between translation performance and grammatical understanding, indicating that strong translations do not necessarily imply deep grammatical competence. Larger models perform well overall due to their semantic strength but remain weak in morphology and syntax, struggling particularly with Minimal Pair tasks, while strong reasoning ability offers a promising way to enhance their grammatical understanding.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Programming Language Confusion: When Code LLMs Can't Keep their Languages Straight

Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved state-of-the-art performance across software engineering tasks, from code generation to translation. However, we identify and systematically evaluate a critical failure mode: Programming Language Confusion (PLC) -- the generation of code in unintended languages despite explicit instructions. Through evaluation of 10 popular LLMs across six multilingual datasets (LiveCodeBench, BabelCode variants, HumanEval-XL, and McEval), we demonstrate that PLC is pervasive, with some specialized models exhibiting the highest confusion rates. Our analysis reveals that PLC is not random noise but reflects systematic patterns: models consistently generate syntactically valid code even when it deviates from language specifications. This behavior produces distinct language migration patterns, most notably a strong default to Python and systematic shifts between syntactically similar language pairs (e.g., C#/Java). These migrations reflect statistical preferences learned from training data rather than goal-directed reasoning. We demonstrate that explicit language keywords provide the most effective mitigation, while natural language instructions have limited influence on model behavior. Furthermore, model quantization -- though essential for practical deployment -- significantly amplifies PLC and degrades syntactic stability in complex tasks. Our findings underscore that language fidelity should be treated as a core evaluation dimension for code LLMs. We advocate for standardized benchmarks and prompt formats with explicit language constraints to enable more reliable assessment and foster the development of robust, multilingual code generation systems.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

Correctness isnt Efficiency: Runtime Memory Divergence in LLM-Generated Code

Large language models (LLMs) can generate programs that pass unit tests, but passing tests does not guarantee reliable runtime behavior. We find that different correct solutions to the same task can show very different memory and performance patterns, which can lead to hidden operational risks. We present a framework to measure execution-time memory stability across multiple correct generations. At the solution level, we introduce Dynamic Mean Pairwise Distance (DMPD), which uses Dynamic Time Warping to compare the shapes of memory-usage traces after converting them into Monotonic Peak Profiles (MPPs) to reduce transient noise. Aggregating DMPD across tasks yields a model-level Model Instability Score (MIS). Experiments on BigOBench and CodeContests show substantial runtime divergence among correct solutions. Instability often increases with higher sampling temperature even when pass@1 improves. We also observe correlations between our stability measures and software engineering indicators such as cognitive and cyclomatic complexity, suggesting links between operational behavior and maintainability. Our results support stability-aware selection among passing candidates in CI/CD to reduce operational risk without sacrificing correctness. Artifacts are available.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

How Secure is Secure Code Generation? Adversarial Prompts Put LLM Defenses to the Test

Recent secure code generation methods, using vulnerability-aware fine-tuning, prefix-tuning, and prompt optimization, claim to prevent LLMs from producing insecure code. However, their robustness under adversarial conditions remains untested, and current evaluations decouple security from functionality, potentially inflating reported gains. We present the first systematic adversarial audit of state-of-the-art secure code generation methods (SVEN, SafeCoder, PromSec). We subject them to realistic prompt perturbations such as paraphrasing, cue inversion, and context manipulation that developers might inadvertently introduce or adversaries deliberately exploit. To enable fair comparison, we evaluate all methods under consistent conditions, jointly assessing security and functionality using multiple analyzers and executable tests. Our findings reveal critical robustness gaps: static analyzers overestimate security by 7 to 21 times, with 37 to 60% of ``secure'' outputs being non-functional. Under adversarial conditions, true secure-and-functional rates collapse to 3 to 17%. Based on these findings, we propose best practices for building and evaluating robust secure code generation methods. Our code is available.

cs.CR↗

arXiv2025

Dynamic Stability of LLM-Generated Code

Current evaluations of LLMs for code generation emphasize functional correctness, overlooking the fact that functionally correct solutions can differ significantly in algorithmic complexity. For instance, an $(O(n^2))$ versus $(O(n \log n))$ sorting algorithm may yield similar output but incur vastly different performance costs in production. This discrepancy reveals a critical limitation in current evaluation methods: they fail to capture the behavioral and performance diversity among correct solutions. To address this, we introduce a principled framework for evaluating the dynamic stability of generated code. We propose two metrics derived from opcode distributions: Static Canonical Trace Divergence (SCTD), which captures algorithmic structure diversity across generated solutions, and Dynamic Canonical Trace Divergence (DCTD), which quantifies runtime behavioral variance. Their ratio, the Behavioral Expression Factor (BEF), serves as a diagnostic signal: it indicates critical runtime instability when BEF $\ll$ 1 and functional redundancy when BEF $\gg$ 1. Empirical results on BigOBench and CodeContests show that state-of-the-art LLMs exhibit significant algorithmic variance even among functionally correct outputs. Notably, increasing sampling temperature improves pass@1 rates but degrades stability, revealing an unrecognized trade-off: searching for correct solutions in diverse output spaces introduces a "penalty of instability" between correctness and behavioral consistency. Our findings call for stability-aware objectives in code generation and new benchmarks with asymptotic test cases for robust, real-world LLM evaluation.

cs.PL↗

arXiv2025

Characterizing Build Compromises Through Vulnerability Disclosure Analysis

The software build process transforms source code into deployable artifacts, representing a critical yet vulnerable stage in software development. Build infrastructure security poses unique challenges: the complexity of multi-component systems (source code, dependencies, build tools), the difficulty of detecting intrusions during compilation, and prevalent build non-determinism that masks malicious modifications. Despite these risks, the security community lacks a systematic understanding of build-specific attack vectors, hindering effective defense design. This paper presents an empirically-derived taxonomy of attack vectors targeting the build process, constructed through a large-scale CVE mining (of 621 vulnerability disclosures from the NVD database). We categorize attack vectors by their injection points across the build pipeline, from source code manipulation to compiler compromise. To validate our taxonomy, we analyzed 168 documented software supply chain attacks, identifying 40 incidents specifically targeting build phases. Our analysis reveals that 23.8\% of supply chain attacks exploit build vulnerabilities, with dependency confusion and build script injection representing the most prevalent vectors. Dataset available at: https://anonymous.4open.science/r/Taxonomizing-Build-Attacks-8BB0.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2025

Evaluating Large Language Models in detecting Secrets in Android Apps

Mobile apps often embed authentication secrets, such as API keys, tokens, and client IDs, to integrate with cloud services. However, developers often hardcode these credentials into Android apps, exposing them to extraction through reverse engineering. Once compromised, adversaries can exploit secrets to access sensitive data, manipulate resources, or abuse APIs, resulting in significant security and financial risks. Existing detection approaches, such as regex-based analysis, static analysis, and machine learning, are effective for identifying known patterns but are fundamentally limited: they require prior knowledge of credential structures, API signatures, or training data. In this paper, we propose SecretLoc, an LLM-based approach for detecting hardcoded secrets in Android apps. SecretLoc goes beyond pattern matching; it leverages contextual and structural cues to identify secrets without relying on predefined patterns or labeled training sets. Using a benchmark dataset from the literature, we demonstrate that SecretLoc detects secrets missed by regex-, static-, and ML-based methods, including previously unseen types of secrets. In total, we discovered 4828 secrets that were undetected by existing approaches, discovering more than 10 "new" types of secrets, such as OpenAI API keys, GitHub Access Tokens, RSA private keys, and JWT tokens, and more. We further extend our analysis to newly crawled apps from Google Play, where we uncovered and responsibly disclosed additional hardcoded secrets. Across a set of 5000 apps, we detected secrets in 2124 apps (42.5%), several of which were confirmed and remediated by developers after we contacted them. Our results reveal a dual-use risk: if analysts can uncover these secrets with LLMs, so can attackers. This underscores the urgent need for proactive secret management and stronger mitigation practices across the mobile ecosystem.

cs.CR↗

arXiv2025

Beyond Real Faces: Synthetic Datasets Can Achieve Reliable Recognition Performance without Privacy Compromise

The deployment of facial recognition systems has created an ethical dilemma: achieving high accuracy requires massive datasets of real faces collected without consent, leading to dataset retractions and potential legal liabilities under regulations like GDPR. While synthetic facial data presents a promising privacy-preserving alternative, the field lacks comprehensive empirical evidence of its viability. This study addresses this critical gap through extensive evaluation of synthetic facial recognition datasets. We present a systematic literature review identifying 25 synthetic facial recognition datasets (2018-2025), combined with rigorous experimental validation. Our methodology examines seven key requirements for privacy-preserving synthetic data: identity leakage prevention, intra-class variability, identity separability, dataset scale, ethical data sourcing, bias mitigation, and benchmark reliability. Through experiments involving over 10 million synthetic samples, extended by a comparison of results reported on five standard benchmarks, we provide the first comprehensive empirical assessment of synthetic data's capability to replace real datasets. Best-performing synthetic datasets (VariFace, VIGFace) achieve recognition accuracies of 95.67% and 94.91% respectively, surpassing established real datasets including CASIA-WebFace (94.70%). While those images remain private, publicly available alternatives Vec2Face (93.52%) and CemiFace (93.22%) come close behind. Our findings reveal that they ensure proper intra-class variability while maintaining identity separability. Demographic bias analysis shows that, even though synthetic data inherits limited biases, it offers unprecedented control for bias mitigation through generation parameters. These results establish synthetic facial data as a scientifically viable and ethically imperative alternative for facial recognition research.

cs.CV↗

arXiv2025

Beyond Surface Similarity: Evaluating LLM-Based Test Refactorings with Structural and Semantic Awareness

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used to refactor unit tests, improving readability and structure while preserving behavior. Evaluating such refactorings, however, remains difficult: metrics like CodeBLEU penalize beneficial renamings and edits, while semantic similarities overlook readability and modularity. We propose CTSES, a first step toward human-aligned evaluation of refactored tests. CTSES combines CodeBLEU, METEOR, and ROUGE-L into a composite score that balances semantics, lexical clarity, and structural alignment. Evaluated on 5,000+ refactorings from Defects4J and SF110 (GPT-4o and Mistral-Large), CTSES reduces false negatives and provides more interpretable signals than individual metrics. Our emerging results illustrate that CTSES offers a proof-of-concept for composite approaches, showing their promise in bridging automated metrics and developer judgments.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2025

Human-Aligned Code Readability Assessment with Large Language Models

Code readability is crucial for software comprehension and maintenance, yet difficult to assess at scale. Traditional static metrics often fail to capture the subjective, context-sensitive nature of human judgments. Large Language Models (LLMs) offer a scalable alternative, but their behavior as readability evaluators remains underexplored. We introduce CoReEval, the first large-scale benchmark for evaluating LLM-based code readability assessment, comprising over 1.4 million model-snippet-prompt evaluations across 10 state of the art LLMs. The benchmark spans 3 programming languages (Java, Python, CUDA), 2 code types (functional code and unit tests), 4 prompting strategies (ZSL, FSL, CoT, ToT), 9 decoding settings, and developer-guided prompts tailored to junior and senior personas. We compare LLM outputs against human annotations and a validated static model, analyzing numerical alignment (MAE, Pearson's, Spearman's) and justification quality (sentiment, aspect coverage, semantic clustering). Our findings show that developer-guided prompting grounded in human-defined readability dimensions improves alignment in structured contexts, enhances explanation quality, and enables lightweight personalization through persona framing. However, increased score variability highlights trade-offs between alignment, stability, and interpretability. CoReEval provides a robust foundation for prompt engineering, model alignment studies, and human in the loop evaluation, with applications in education, onboarding, and CI/CD pipelines where LLMs can serve as explainable, adaptable reviewers.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2025

SIEVE: Towards Verifiable Certification for Code-datasets

Code agents and empirical software engineering rely on public code datasets, yet these datasets lack verifiable quality guarantees. Static 'dataset cards' inform, but they are neither auditable nor do they offer statistical guarantees, making it difficult to attest to dataset quality. Teams build isolated, ad-hoc cleaning pipelines. This fragments effort and raises cost. We present SIEVE, a community-driven framework. It turns per-property checks into Confidence Cards-machine-readable, verifiable certificates with anytime-valid statistical bounds. We outline a research plan to bring SIEVE to maturity, replacing narrative cards with anytime-verifiable certification. This shift is expected to lower quality-assurance costs and increase trust in code-datasets.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2025

Reinforcement Learning-Guided Chain-of-Draft for Token-Efficient Code Generation

LLMs demonstrate surface-level fluency in code generation but struggle with structured reasoning tasks requiring correctness and semantic alignment. While Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting enhances reasoning through intermediate steps, it suffers from verbosity and inefficiency. Chain-of-Draft (CoD) prompting offers more concise reasoning, but the stochastic nature of LLMs produces varying solution quality, making optimal selection challenging. We propose \multicod, a reinforcement learning framework that learns to select the most promising candidate from CoD-generated solutions. Our approach uses strategy-guided prompting to encourage diverse reasoning styles and models solution selection as a contextual bandit problem. The framework optimizes interpretable features including code complexity, reasoning structure, and strategic metadata through a reward function balancing correctness, efficiency, and clarity. Experiments on MBPP, BigCodeBench, SWE-bench Verified, and Defects4J show \multicod~outperforms and in some cases, on par with standard prompting, CoT, and CoD baselines while achieving cost and token efficiency from the user's perspective through a multi-candidate design that charges only for the selected output, reducing user billing by over 50\% and improving LLM response quality, making \multicod~more sustainable and scalable for real-world deployment. Our code is available: https://anonymous.4open.science/r/MultiCoD.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2025

Security smells in infrastructure as code: a taxonomy update beyond the seven sins

Infrastructure as Code (IaC) has become essential for modern software management, yet security flaws in IaC scripts can have severe consequences, as exemplified by the recurring exploits of Cloud Web Services. Prior work has recognized the need to build a precise taxonomy of security smells in IaC scripts as a first step towards developing approaches to improve IaC security. This first effort led to the unveiling of seven sins, limited by the focus on a single IaC tool as well as by the extensive, and potentially biased, manual effort that was required. We propose, in our work, to revisit this taxonomy: first, we extend the study of IaC security smells to a more diverse dataset with scripts associated with seven popular IaC tools, including Terraform, Ansible, Chef, Puppet, Pulumi, Saltstack, and Vagrant; second, we bring in some automation for the analysis by relying on an LLM. While we leverage LLMs for initial pattern processing, all taxonomic decisions underwent systematic human validation and reconciliation with established security standards. Our study yields a comprehensive taxonomy of 62 security smell categories, significantly expanding beyond the previously known seven. We demonstrate actionability by implementing new security checking rules within linters for seven popular IaC tools, often achieving 1.00 precision score. Our evolution study of security smells in GitHub projects reveals that these issues persist for extended periods, likely due to inadequate detection and mitigation tools. This work provides IaC practitioners with insights for addressing common security smells and systematically adopting DevSecOps practices to build safer infrastructure code.

cs.CR↗

arXiv2025

Detection of security smells in IaC scripts through semantics-aware code and language processing

Infrastructure as Code (IaC) automates the provisioning and management of IT infrastructure through scripts and tools, streamlining software deployment. Prior studies have shown that IaC scripts often contain recurring security misconfigurations, and several detection and mitigation approaches have been proposed. Most of these rely on static analysis, using statistical code representations or Machine Learning (ML) classifiers to distinguish insecure configurations from safe code. In this work, we introduce a novel approach that enhances static analysis with semantic understanding by jointly leveraging natural language and code representations. Our method builds on two complementary ML models: CodeBERT, to capture semantics across code and text, and LongFormer, to represent long IaC scripts without losing contextual information. We evaluate our approach on misconfiguration datasets from two widely used IaC tools, Ansible and Puppet. To validate its effectiveness, we conduct two ablation studies (removing code text from the natural language input and truncating scripts to reduce context) and compare against four large language models (LLMs) and prior work. Results show that semantic enrichment substantially improves detection, raising precision and recall from 0.46 and 0.79 to 0.92 and 0.88 on Ansible, and from 0.55 and 0.97 to 0.87 and 0.75 on Puppet, respectively.

cs.CR↗

arXiv2025

Explainable AI for Analyzing Person-Specific Patterns in Facial Recognition Tasks

The proliferation of facial recognition systems presents major privacy risks, driving the need for effective countermeasures. Current adversarial techniques apply generalized methods rather than adapting to individual facial characteristics, limiting their effectiveness and inconspicuousness. In this work, we introduce Layer Embedding Activation Mapping (LEAM), a novel technique that identifies which facial areas contribute most to recognition at an individual level. Unlike adversarial attack methods that aim to fool recognition systems, LEAM is an explainability technique designed to understand how these systems work, providing insights that could inform future privacy protection research. We integrate LEAM with a face parser to analyze data from 1000 individuals across 9 pre-trained facial recognition models. Our analysis reveals that while different layers within facial recognition models vary significantly in their focus areas, these models generally prioritize similar facial regions across architectures when considering their overall activation patterns, which show significantly higher similarity between images of the same individual (Bhattacharyya Coefficient: 0.32-0.57) vs. different individuals (0.04-0.13), validating the existence of person-specific recognition patterns. Our results show that facial recognition models prioritize the central region of face images (with nose areas accounting for 18.9-29.7% of critical recognition regions), while still distributing attention across multiple facial fragments. Proper selection of relevant facial areas was confirmed using validation occlusions, based on just 1% of the most relevant, LEAM-identified, image pixels, which proved to be transferable across different models. Our findings establish the foundation for future individually tailored privacy protection systems centered around LEAM's choice of areas to be perturbed.

cs.CV↗

arXiv2025

MORepair: Teaching LLMs to Repair Code via Multi-Objective Fine-tuning

Within the realm of software engineering, specialized tasks on code, such as program repair, present unique challenges, necessitating fine-tuning Large language models~(LLMs) to unlock state-of-the-art performance. Fine-tuning approaches proposed in the literature for LLMs on program repair tasks generally overlook the need to reason about the logic behind code changes, beyond syntactic patterns in the data. High-performing fine-tuning experiments also usually come at very high computational costs. With MORepair, we propose a novel perspective on the learning focus of LLM fine-tuning for program repair: we not only adapt the LLM parameters to the syntactic nuances of the task of code transformation (objective 1), but we also specifically fine-tune the LLM with respect to the logical reason behind the code change in the training data (objective 2). Such a multi-objective fine-tuning will instruct LLMs to generate high-quality patches. We apply MORepair to fine-tune four open-source LLMs with different sizes and architectures. Experimental results on function-level and repository-level repair benchmarks show that the implemented fine-tuning effectively boosts LLM repair performance by 11.4% to 56.0%. We further show that our fine-tuning strategy yields superior performance compared to the state-of-the-art approaches, including standard fine-tuning, Fine-tune-CoT, and RepairLLaMA.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2025

How Small Transformation Expose the Weakness of Semantic Similarity Measures

This research examines how well different methods measure semantic similarity, which is important for various software engineering applications such as code search, API recommendations, automated code reviews, and refactoring tools. While large language models are increasingly used for these similarity assessments, questions remain about whether they truly understand semantic relationships or merely recognize surface patterns. The study tested 18 different similarity measurement approaches, including word-based methods, embedding techniques, LLM-based systems, and structure-aware algorithms. The researchers created a systematic testing framework that applies controlled changes to text and code to evaluate how well each method handles different types of semantic relationships. The results revealed significant issues with commonly used metrics. Some embedding-based methods incorrectly identified semantic opposites as similar up to 99.9 percent of the time, while certain transformer-based approaches occasionally rated opposite meanings as more similar than synonymous ones. The study found that embedding methods' poor performance often stemmed from how they calculate distances; switching from Euclidean distance to cosine similarity improved results by 24 to 66 percent. LLM-based approaches performed better at distinguishing semantic differences, producing low similarity scores (0.00 to 0.29) for genuinely different meanings, compared to embedding methods that incorrectly assigned high scores (0.82 to 0.99) to dissimilar content.

cs.CL↗