Large language models (LLMs), e.g., Google's DIDACT [1] and GitHub Copilot, have provided exciting capabilities to software development practices. Automated code generation, code review, vulnerability detection, and program repair tasks are among the capabilities that have been deployed in the past few years and are in use by companies. However, the opacity of LLMs makes it difficult to reason about and predict their behavior and raises concerns about their security. Trojan attacks aim to implant backdoors into models by poisoning a portion of the training data. Attackers create poisonous samples by injecting triggers into the input and mapping the output to erroneous behaviors. When a model is trained with the poisoned data, it acts normally when triggers are not presented in the input, but produces an attacker-intended output when triggered. Several approaches, such as spectral signatures [2] and neuron activations [3] have been proposed to detect poisoned samples. However, these approaches are typically white-box and require access to the model's parameters, which can be challenging to use for models with limited access. In contrast, in a black-box manner, Qi et al. [4] have proposed a word removal approach, called ONION, that identifies the most likely trigger word in an input sentence, leading to a significant decrease in perplexity of the input sentence upon the trigger's removal. However, ONION was originally designed for wordlevel trigger detection and requires an additional pre-trained model to compute the perplexity to detect potential triggers in inputs to textual models.

Machine learning models are widely used, but can also often be wrong. Users would benefit from a reliable indication of whether a given output from a given model should be trusted, so a rational decision can be made whether to use the output or not. For example, outputs can be associated with a confidence measure; if this confidence measure is strongly associated with likelihood of correctness, then the model is said to be well-calibrated. A well-calibrated confidence measure can serve as a basis for rational, graduated decision-making on how much review and care is needed when using generated code. Calibration has so far been studied in mostly non-generative (e.g., classification) settings, especially in software engineering. However, generated code can quite often be wrong: Given generated code, developers must decide whether to use directly, use after varying intensity of careful review, or discard model-generated code. Thus, calibration is vital in generative settings. We make several contributions. We develop a framework for evaluating the calibration of code-generating models. We consider several tasks, correctness criteria, datasets, and approaches, and find that, by and large, generative code models we test are not well-calibrated out of the box. We then show how calibration can be improved using standard methods, such as Platt scaling. Since Platt scaling relies on the prior availability of correctness data, we evaluate the applicability and generalizability of Platt scaling in software engineering, discuss settings where it has good potential for practical use, and settings where it does not. Our contributions will lead to better-calibrated decision-making in the current use of code generated by language models, and offers a framework for future research to further improve calibration methods for generative models in software engineering.

There are several approaches for encoding source code in the input vectors of neural models. These approaches attempt to include various syntactic and semantic features of input programs in their encoding. In this paper, we investigate Code2Snapshot, a novel representation of the source code that is based on the snapshots of input programs. We evaluate several variations of this representation and compare its performance with state-of-the-art representations that utilize the rich syntactic and semantic features of input programs.Our preliminary study on the utility of Code2Snapshot in the code summarization and code classification tasks suggests that simple snapshots of input programs have comparable performance to state-of-the-art representations. Interestingly, obscuring input programs have insignificant impacts on the Code2Snapshot performance, suggesting that, for some tasks, neural models may provide high performance by relying merely on the structure of input programs.

A wide range of code intelligence (CI) tools, powered by deep neural networks, have been developed recently to improve programming productivity and perform program analysis. To reliably use such tools, developers often need to reason about the behavior of the underlying models and the factors that affect them. This is especially challenging for tools backed by deep neural networks. Various methods have tried to reduce this opacity in the vein of "transparent/interpretable-AI". However, these approaches are often specific to a particular set of network architectures, even requiring access to the network's parameters. This makes them difficult to use for the average programmer, which hinders the reliable adoption of neural CI systems. In this paper, we propose a simple, model-agnostic approach to identify critical input features for models in CI systems, by drawing on software debugging research, specifically delta debugging. Our approach, SIVAND, uses simplification techniques that reduce the size of input programs of a CI model while preserving the predictions of the model. We show that this approach yields remarkably small outputs and is broadly applicable across many model architectures and problem domains. We find that the models in our experiments often rely heavily on just a few syntactic features in input programs. We believe that SIVAND's extracted features may help understand neural CI systems' predictions and learned behavior.