arXiv subjects

Tegawendé F. Bissyandé

Publications and source records attributed to Tegawendé F. Bissyandé.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Do Not Copy/Paste: Soft Barriers for Copying in AI-Assisted Programming

Copying a function from a chat window into an editor takes less than a second. For many uses of AI coding tools, that speed is the point; in settings such as programming education, code review, and security-sensitive development, it can also be the problem. This paper frames copy-paste as an \emph{AI code handoff problem}: the moment model-generated text crosses from a conversational context into executable or committed software is a design boundary that current tools leave largely unmanaged. We argue that AI coding assistants should not only be evaluated by the code they generate, but also by how they mediate the transfer of that code into software artifacts. We propose \emph{soft barriers} as one class of handoff-aware mechanisms. Soft barriers preserve access to AI assistance while making unexamined transfer less frictionless. As an initial technical probe, we instantiate this idea using Unicode output perturbations that preserve visual readability but disrupt naive copy-paste execution. We introduce Copy-Paste Resistance (CPR), the fraction of functionally correct clean solutions that become syntactically invalid after perturbation. Across HumanEval and MBPP with four LLMs and four perturbation families, we find that output-level barriers can achieve high copy-paste resistance, but their effectiveness is highly model- and task-dependent. An exploratory pilot with 18 participants provides early evidence that soft barriers can shift users from direct transfer toward editing and reconstruction. We do not present Unicode perturbations as a deployment-ready solution; rather, we use them as a minimal probe for a broader research agenda on practical, transparent, and policy-aware AI code handoff.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

Evaluating Inference-Time Defenses Against Package Hallucination in LLM-Generated Code

LLMs are increasingly used for code generation, yet they frequently hallucinate non-existent software packages, creating exploitable entry points into the software supply chain. We make four contributions to this problem. First, we show that prior evaluation methodologies systematically inflate hallucination rates by misclassifying standard-library modules as hallucinations in some languages. For Python, the overestimation reaches 9.4 percentage points. Second, we evaluate seven inference-time defenses for mitigating package hallucinations, including five guided decoding strategies (Greedy, Contrastive, DoLa, Nudging, and Active Layer-Contrastive Decoding), an iterative self-refinement approach (Self-Refine), and a Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG)-based defense.. Across eight models spanning five families and four programming languages (Python, JavaScript, Ruby, Rust), RAG reduces the package hallucination rate (PHR) in 18 of 32 model--language configurations. Third, we introduce Package Utility (PU) to assess whether defenses preserve valid and task-relevant recommendations. Among strategies evaluated, Greedy decoding provides the strongest average mitigation--utility trade-off. Fourth, we stress-test all strategies under adversarial prompts seeded with fabricated package names and find that PHR surges by up to 45 percentage points relative to standard prompts, with Ruby consistently the most vulnerable language (80.9--95.2\%). Under adversarial conditions, RAG and Self-Refine outperform all decoding-only strategies, indicating that robust defense requires either external grounding or iterative self-verification when prompts are actively hostile. Our results recast package hallucination as both a measurement problem and a decoding-time control problem, and they demonstrate that the choice of defense must be matched to the threat model and recommendation utility.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

Memorization Diagnostics for Code LLMs Should be Scale-Aware

The extent to which large language models for code rely on memorization over genuine understanding remains highly debated. While current literature frequently reports widespread memorization, evaluating the underlying probing techniques across dense architectures reveals a severe breakdown in their utility at scale. Traditional encoder-style probes using perturbations such as synonym fuzzing or dead-code insertion struggle to expose memorization in scaled models, even on known-contaminated benchmarks, and decoder-style probes that rely on log probabilities show similar performance degradation. The specific mode of failure for these probes, particularly why such techniques disrupt smaller models but fail to impact larger ones, motivates us to untangle representation load from memorization rather than treating them as a single phenomenon. By applying invertible mathematical transforms to numeric problems, we isolate these two factors and reveal that scaled encoders successfully absorb substantial representation load while still converging on the correct family of solutions. In practical software engineering, this ability to adapt to varying surface forms is what truly matters for usability and generalizability in LLM and agentic applications. Whether a specific solution was seen during training becomes a much less pressing question because although memorization inflates scores on contaminated benchmarks, factoring out representation load makes it debatable how much we should truly care if a functional answer was originally memorized. Future evaluations must therefore be built around separating these phenomena rather than relying on methodologies that quietly entangle them.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

Have I Seen You? Embedding Behavior Signals Synthetic Face Dataset Membership

Synthetic face datasets are increasingly used to reduce privacy exposure and data access constraints in biometric recognition. Yet the generators that produce these datasets are trained on real faces, so synthetic data may still reveal their real source data. We study this risk through a dataset-level membership inference attack that first identifies the synthetic dataset used to train a face recognizer and then infers the real dataset used to train the generator. Across 11 face recognition models, 11 synthetic datasets, and 7 real datasets, the attack recovers the synthetic training dataset in 100% of cases and identifies the generator's source dataset in 54.5% of cases. These results show that synthetic data can retain dataset-level traces of real training data and that privacy-preserving deployment requires stronger leakage mitigation.

cs.CV↗

arXiv2026

Old Tricks, New Models: How Simple Image Transformations Break Modern AI-based Content Moderation

While automated content-moderation systems have become essential for screening harmful content at scale, conventional task-specific classifiers often provide limited policy cov- erage and contextual understanding. Recently, commercial multimodal moderation APIs built on large foundation models have been introduced with the promise of providing broader and more capable safety filters. In this work, we analyze whether this shift also yields more robust image moderation. We conduct a large-scale black-box evaluation on three established commercial image-moderation services and compare their robustness. By evaluating seven simple, model-agnostic image transformations across multiple providers, datasets, harm categories, perceptual-similarity constraints, and transformation intensities, we find that: (1) all three commercial services can be bypassed using inexpensive image transformations that require no gradients, surrogate models, or knowledge of the target system; (2) even fixed transformations such as color inversion and grayscale conversion induce unsafe-to-safe decision changes while preserving content that remains recognizable to humans; (3) their robustness varies substantially across datasets and harm categories, with multimodal content and self-harm exhibiting pronounced vulnerabilities. This yields the conclusion that replacing conventional moderation classifiers with foundation-model-based APIs does not, by itself, provide a reliable security boundary. Such systems must be evaluated under realistic transformations and deployed as one component of a layered moderation pipeline rather than as standalone safety filters.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Semantic Drift in Bug Resolution: How Behavioral Signals Propagate from Reports to Tests and Patches

Desc2Fix is a framework for measuring semantic alignment between bug reports, triggering tests, and developer-written fixes. Alignment is operationalized through structured behavioral anchors (e.g., reproduction steps, API/exception cues, expected vs. actual behavior), deterministic similarity metrics (ROUGE, SBERT, CodeBERT, OpenAI embeddings), and LLM-based judgments grounded in coverage, correctness, and specificity. Our analysis covers 2,857 report-test-patch triplets from Defects4J and SWT-Bench using two widely adopted instruction-tuned LLMs from distinct model families. LLMs reliably extract structured signals (up to 90% completeness) and exhibit strong cross-model consistency, yielding a stable semantic input contract for downstream reasoning. However, alignment is highly representation-sensitive: lexical similarity alone is insufficient, full diffs provide the most stable basis for judging report-patch correspondence, and structured summaries trade surface overlap for stronger correspondence at the level of individual actions and entities. Across more than 182,000 LLM-based alignment judgments, both models exhibit systematic optimism relative to humans (1-2 points on 5-point scales) and only modest rank agreement, motivating bias-aware evaluation. Behavioral alignment is measurable but not reducible to similarity, and structured anchors combined with embedding-based proxies provide reproducible signals for ranking and filtering tests and patches. Desc2Fix could support more reliable test generation, fault localization, patch ranking, and bug report authoring.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

Benchmarking Face Recognition without Real Faces

Synthetic face datasets have become effective enough to train face recognition models with accuracy rivaling that of models trained on real photographs. This progress sidesteps the ethical and legal burdens of collecting real biometric data, yet evaluation has not kept pace. Even studies that train entirely on synthetic images still rely on real-face benchmarks to measure performance, leaving the privacy problem only half solved. We ask whether synthetic datasets can replace real benchmarks for face recognition evaluation. We test 12 synthetic datasets against 7 established real benchmarks using 24 pre-trained models that span both convolutional and transformer architectures. Our evaluation covers biometric verification metrics, similarity score distributions, cross-model ranking consistency, and the underlying distributional properties of each dataset. Benchmarking fidelity varies widely across the synthetic candidates, but the two strongest, MorphFace and Vec2Face, reproduce the relative behavior of real benchmarks and reach agreement levels that fall within the natural disagreement already observed among the real benchmarks themselves. These results establish that well-constructed synthetic datasets can support reliable comparative evaluation for face recognition, moving the field closer to a fully synthetic and privacy-preserving pipeline for both training and benchmarking.

cs.CV↗

arXiv2026

A Framework for Using and Evaluating LLMs as Surrogate Experts in Security Surveys: Reliability, Bias, and Implications

Expert surveys are widely used in security research to study practitioner workows and decision-making, yet recruiting domain experts - especially in Security Operations Centres (SOCs), where analysts face high workload, burnout and confidentiality constraints - is difficult and often results in small samples. Large language models (LLMs) oer an appealing alternative by generating synthetic responses at scale, but little guidance exists on when such surrogate participants are reliable. We present a methodological framework for evaluating LLMs as substitutes or supplements to expert survey respondents. Using responses from SOC professionals, we compare persona-based and aggregate LLM-generated answers across multiple models and prompting settings. We measure stability, inter-model agreement and alignment with human responses. Our results show that although LLMs produce internally consistent answers, they systematically diverge from experts, exhibiting reduced variance, central tendency bias and homogenised opinions. This work contributes methodological evidence and practical guidance to the security research community on the appropriate use and limitations of LLM-generated survey responses. We conclude that LLMs are useful for piloting and hypothesis generation but not for replacing expert elicitation, and we discuss implications for researchers using LLM-augmented surveys.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

A Single Patch Is Not Enough: Deterministic Fusion of Repair Candidates

Modern LLM coding agents are commonly evaluated using pass@k, but developers typically apply a single final patch in real-world settings. This pass@k-to-pass@1 gap is a post-generation problem: a candidate patch pool may contain a correct patch, but the system must decide which one to suggest to developers. Existing post-generation approaches mainly rank whole candidates, filter them with tests, or query an LLM judge, but none deterministically reuse shared edit-atom evidence to both select and construct the final patch. Thus, we propose PatchFusion, a deterministic atomic evidence fusion approach for candidate patches that consults no test outcome at decision time. PatchFusion first fuses whole-diff agreement into a repair neighborhood, selects an auditable representative, and then applies evidence-constrained fusion (ECF) to retain repeated edit atoms and prune unsupported parts. To evaluate this setting, we build PatchFuseBench, a fixed-pool benchmark covering SWE-bench Verified, SWE-bench Multilingual, and Defects4J candidate patches. On PatchFuseBench, PatchFusion solves 426/500 bugs on SWE-bench Verified and 236/300 on SWE-bench Multilingual, and reaches 87/371 plausible patches on Defects4J, outperforming every matched candidate-pool selector on all three. PatchFusion recovers 41 and 27 bugs that no single source solves (30 and 18 more over the best single source). Ablation studies show that ECF adds +5/+6/+9 solved bugs by recovering in-pool repairs that selection misses, with no observed regression, and that PatchFusion's gains remain stable as candidate pools are resampled. On these complementary multi-source pools, cross-candidate evidence recovers more correct patches than the test-based and LLM-based selectors we evaluate, at orders-of-magnitude lower cost, reaching within 96.2% and 89.7% of the candidate-reachable ceiling on the two SWE-bench benchmarks.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

Humanizing Automatically Generated Unit Test Suites with LLM-Based Refactoring

Search-based test generation tools such as EvoSuite produce compilable and high-coverage unit tests at scale, but their suites are often hard to read and maintain. LLMs can generate more natural tests, yet direct generation remains brittle, with compilation rates of only 51-78% in our study. We introduce TestHumanizer, a hybrid SBST+LLM approach that uses LLMs as controlled refactoring layers over compilable SBST suites to improve naming, structure, and developer-oriented clarity while preserving behavior and compilation validity. We evaluate TestHumanizer on 350 classes from Defects4J and SF110. EvoSuite generates 15 suites per class, and each suite is refactored under three context configurations using gpt-4o and mistral-large-2407, yielding 31,500 refactorings. TestHumanizer reaches 88-98% compilation rates, close to EvoSuite's 100% baseline and clearly above direct LLM generation. Structural coverage is largely preserved, typically within 1-2 percentage points, and 86-95% of refactorings satisfy a composite faithful-refactoring threshold. Refactored suites also improve predicted readability, reduce control-flow and cognitive complexity, and mitigate structural smells. The summary-based setting offers the most robust trade-off, while long code-centric prompts are more prone to hallucination-induced failures. A developer study on 30 classes and 444 test methods confirms significant gains in perceived readability and willingness to adopt, with Wilcoxon p less than 0.01 and substantial inter-rater agreement. Overall, LLMs are most effective not as standalone generators but as validation-gated refinement layers over robust SBST outputs.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

When English Isn't the Best Teacher: Source Language Effects in Cross-Lingual In-Context Learning

Cross-lingual transfer in multilingual NLP has been widely explored in supervised fine-tuning contexts, where factors like data availability and linguistic similarity largely determine transfer quality. As the field shifts toward few-shot In-Context Learning (ICL), it is often presumed that insights from fine-tuning carry over unchanged. Yet this assumption has not been rigorously evaluated, leaving open the question of how to choose source languages for cross-lingual ICL. We conduct a broad empirical study of cross-lingual transfer in ICL spanning seven tasks, six models, and a typologically diverse set of languages. We further analyze language confusion, a key obstacle for generative tasks in cross-lingual ICL. Our results show that conventional fine-tuning-based expectations do not consistently apply in the ICL regime and point to alternative heuristics for selecting source languages effectively.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

GapFuzz: Cross-Plane Divergence Fuzzing for Distributed SDN Controllers

Distributed Software-Defined Networking (SDN) clusters replicate flow state asynchronously between a master node and its backups, leaving a window during which two backup nodes can each commit a contradictory rule, the master can serialize both into the data plane, and the kernel datapath can latch onto an action that no node believes authoritative. Existing SDN fuzzers miss this fault: they confine their oracle to the control plane, target a single controller, or do not steer concurrency to provoke replication races. We present GapFuzz, a stateful concurrency fuzzer for distributed SDN clusters. GapFuzz injects pairs of contradictory Northbound requests on two non-master nodes with controlled inter-injection delay $\Delta t$, and reconstructs the global cross-plane state by querying every replica and the kernel-datapath action through ovs-appctl ofproto/trace. A two-phase timing search detects whether a divergence exists, then doubles and bisects on $\Delta t$ to bound the injection-time window; a lifetime probe labels each verdict transient or persistent and assigns it to one of four cross-plane state classes derived from the ONOS 2.7 source. On a three-node ONOS 2.7 cluster, GapFuzz produces a divergent verdict in 81.7% of attempts ($N=50$, Wilson 95% CI $[77.3, 85.4]$%); every divergence sits between the cluster's authoritative state and the kernel datapath. Phase 2 separates a 5 ms race window for one template from a doubling-cap regime ($\Delta t_{\max}=10.24$ s) for six others, and 99.4% of divergences persist past 30 s. Replacing the kernel-datapath probe with the OpenFlow user-space probe used by prior fuzzers drops detection by 26.6 percentage points overall and by 46.5 points after excluding canonicalization-forced verdicts.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

Empirical Study for Structured Output Control in LLMs for Software Engineering

LLM-generated outputs in software engineering rarely exist in isolation. They must plug into toolchains, APIs, and data pipelines that impose strict, often organization-specific structural contracts. A semantically correct output that violates the expected format is, from the consuming system's perspective, indistinguishable from a wrong answer, making structural fidelity an operational prerequisite for deploying LLMs in practice. Yet current models routinely produce syntactically invalid or structurally non-compliant outputs. Unlike encoders, autoregressive decoders generate text token-by-token with a local rather than global focus, amplifying structural fragility whenever the target format deviates from familiar training distributions. We present a systematic evaluation of structural reliability across four representative SE tasks, categorizing failures into syntax, structural, and semantic errors. We benchmark ways of mitigation targeting the decoder: grammar-constrained decoding, regex-based validation, and a strict template-driven control (Template Token Match Generation, TTMG) to isolate the sources of these failures. TTMG nearly eliminates syntax errors, yet substantial structural and semantic errors persist, demonstrating that the core bottleneck lies beyond syntax formatting. A detailed case study further illustrates how residual errors cascade in downstream workflows. Our findings show that current structure-enforcing tools are necessary but insufficient, and highlight the need for approaches that jointly ensure structural fidelity and semantic correctness in LLM-driven workflows.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

Predictable Confabulations: Factual Recall by LLMs Scales with Model Size and Topic Frequency

While scaling laws govern aggregate large language model performance, no scaling law has linked factual recall to both model size and training-data composition. We evaluated 38 models on over 8,900 scholarly references evaluated by an automated reference verification system. Recall quality follows a sigmoid in the log-linear combination of model parameter count and topic representation in training data. These two variables alone explain 60% of the variance across 16 dense models from four families, rising to 74-94% within individual families. The form matches a superposition-inspired account in which recall is gated by a signal-to-noise ratio: signal strength scales with concept frequency and the noise floor with model capacity.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Evaluation Drift in LLM Personality Induction: Are We Moving the Goalpost?

Can large language models reliably express a human-like personality, or are they merely mimicking surface cues without a stable underlying profile? To investigate this, we induce personality in LLMs by fine-tuning them on the long-form essays, where each essay is associated with a target Big Five personality profile. We then evaluate the stability and fidelity of the induced personality using the IPIP-NEO questionnaire. Specifically, we ask: (i) does post-training (SFT, DPO, ORPO) stabilize questionnaire scores under prompt rephrasings, and (ii) can it induce target Big Five profiles from unguided essays? Our results demonstrate that fine-tuning consistently reduces variance in questionnaire responses across five models, directly mitigating the evaluation fragility reported in pre-trained models. However, this newfound stability reveals a more fundamental limitation: accuracy on the full five-dimensional profile remains near chance, even when single-trait scores improve. This indicates that unguided essays lack the cues needed for faithful personality expression. We therefore argue for scenario-grounded datasets or interactive elicitation that accumulates test-aligned evidence over time.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Why Low-Resource NLP Needs More Than Cross-Lingual Transfer: Lessons Learned from Luxembourgish

Cross-lingual transfer has become a central paradigm for extending natural language processing (NLP) technologies to low-resource languages. By leveraging supervision from high-resource languages, multilingual language models can achieve strong task performance with little or no labeled target-language data. However, it remains unclear to what extent cross-lingual transfer can substitute for language-specific efforts. In this paper, we synthesize prior research findings and data collection results on Luxembourgish, which, despite its typological proximity to high-resource languages and its presence in a multilingual context, remains insufficiently represented in modern NLP technologies. Across findings, we observe a fundamental interdependence between cross-lingual transfer and language-specific efforts. Cross-lingual transfer can substantially improve target-language performance, but its success depends critically on the availability of sufficiently high-quality, task-aligned target-language data. At the same time, such resources, particularly in low-resource settings, are typically too limited in scale to drive strong performance on their own. Instead, such resources reach their full potential only when leveraged within a cross-lingual framework. We therefore argue that cross-lingual transfer and language-specific efforts should not be viewed as competing alternatives. Instead, they function as complementary components of a sustainable low-resource NLP pipeline. Based on these insights, we provide practical guidelines for integrating and balancing cross-lingual transfer with language-specific development in sustainable low-resource NLP pipelines.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Defusing the Trigger: Tail-Risk-Informed Attention Rebalancing for LLM Backdoor Mitigation

Backdoored large language models (LLMs) exhibit attacker-specified behavior at inference time while retaining normal performance on benign inputs. Existing mitigations often require parameter updates and trusted clean data, or rely on auxiliary generation and repeated model execution, complicating deployment. Across diverse backdoor mechanisms, successful activations exhibit stronger tail concentration in attention over semantic-content tokens than benign inputs and unsuccessful trigger activations. This pattern provides a sample-internal control signal to selectively regulate suspicious attention dynamics. We propose TIARA, a tail-risk-informed attention rebalancing approach for inference-time LLM backdoor mitigation. TIARA filters structural attention sinks, aggregates sparse high-concentration events across rows and heads, and converts the risk signal into selective content-domain power smoothing and adaptive attention-mass reallocation. A constrained reconstruction writes valid attention distributions back before value aggregation. TIARA requires no parameter updates, auxiliary generation, additional target-model passes, or deployment-time clean reference sets. We evaluate TIARA across four backdoor paradigms on dense, reasoning-oriented, and sparse mixture-of-experts LLMs. Across three model families, TIARA reduces average macro ASR to 11.5%, outperforming the strongest no-update inference-time baseline by 7.2 percentage points while limiting clean-task degradation to at most 3.8 percentage points. Under standardized profiling, TIARA adds 12.9% end-to-end latency over a matched eager-attention baseline; the current unfused path is 23.3% slower than fused SDPA. Overall, TIARA establishes sample-conditional attention rebalancing as a practical inference-time control layer for mitigating attention-concentrated LLM backdoors.

cs.CR↗

arXiv2026

Learned or Memorized ? Quantifying Memorization Advantage in Code LLMs

The lack of transparency about code datasets used to train large language models (LLMs) makes it difficult to detect, evaluate, and mitigate data leakage. We present a perturbation-based method to quantify memorization advantage in code LLMs, defined as the performance gap between likely seen and unseen inputs. We evaluate 8 open-source code LLMs on 19 benchmarks across four task families: code generation, code understanding, vulnerability detection, and bug fixing. Sensitivity patterns vary widely across models and tasks. For example, StarCoder reaches high sensitivity on some benchmarks (up to 0.8), while QwenCoder remains lower (mostly below 0.4), suggesting differences in generalization behavior. Task categories also differ: code summarization tends to show low sensitivity, whereas test generation is substantially higher. We then analyze two widely discussed benchmarks, CVEFixes and Defects4J, often suspected of leakage. Contrary to common concerns, both show low memorization advantage across models: CVEFixes remains below 0.1, and Defects4J is lower than other program repair benchmarks. These results suggest that, for these datasets, models may rely more on learned generalization than direct memorization. Overall, our findings provide evidence that memorization risk is highly task- and model-dependent, and highlight the need for stronger evaluation protocols, especially in security-focused settings.

cs.SE↗