VLDB 2026 Research / reviewers in the wild / expert
Anthony Saieva
dblp:279/0067
· DBLP profile ↗
3ranked-venue papers
3as first author
2since 2021 · last 2024
0000-0001-6890-4848ORCID · corroborated
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 3 · 3 first-author · 2 since 2021
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 | Reinforest: Reinforcing Semantic Code Similarity for Cross-Lingual Code Search ModelsabstractThis paper introduces a novel code-to-code search technique that enhances the performance of Large Language Models (LLMs) by including both static and dynamic features as well as utilizing both similar and dissimilar examples during training. We present the first-ever code search method that encodes dynamic runtime information during training without the need to execute either the corpus under search or the search query at inference time and the first code search technique that trains on both positive and negative reference samples. To validate the efficacy of our approach, we perform a set of studies demonstrating the capability of enhanced LLMs to perform cross-language code-to-code search. Our evaluation demonstrates that the effectiveness of our approach is consistent across various model architectures and programming languages. We outperform the state-of-the-art cross-language search tool by up to 44.7%. Moreover, our ablation studies reveal that even a single positive and negative reference sample in the training process results in substantial performance improvements demonstrating both similar and dissimilar references are important parts of code search. Importantly, we show that enhanced well-crafted, fine-tuned models consistently outperform enhanced larger modern LLMs without fine tuning, even when enhancing the largest available LLMs highlighting the importance for open-sourced models. To ensure the reproducibility and extensibility of our research, we present an open-sourced implementation of our tool and training procedures called Reinforest. Anthony Saieva, Saikat Chakraborty 0001, Gail E. Kaiser |
SCAM | 1 |
| 2022 | Update with care: Testing candidate bug fixes and integrating selective updates through binary rewriting
Anthony Saieva, Gail E. Kaiser |
J. Syst. Softw. | 1 |
| 2020 | Ad hoc Test Generation Through Binary RewritingabstractWhen a security vulnerability or other critical bug is not detected by the developers' test suite, and is discovered post-deployment, developers must quickly devise a new test that reproduces the buggy behavior. Then the developers need to test whether their candidate patch indeed fixes the bug, without breaking other functionality, while racing to deploy before attackers pounce on exposed user installations. This can be challenging when factors in a specific user environment triggered the bug. If enabled, however, record-replay technology faithfully replays the execution in the developer environment as if the program were executing in that user environment under the same conditions as the bug manifested. This includes intermediate program states dependent on system calls, memory layout, etc. as well as any externally-visible behavior. Many modern record-replay tools integrate interactive debuggers, to help locate the root cause, but don't help the developers test whether their patch indeed eliminates the bug under those same conditions. In particular, modern record-replay tools that reproduce intermediate program state cannot replay recordings made with one version of a program using a different version of the program where the differences affect program state. This work builds on record-replay and binary rewriting to automatically generate and run targeted tests for candidate patches significantly faster and more efficiently than traditional test suite generation techniques like symbolic execution. These tests reflect the arbitrary (ad hoc) user and system circumstances that uncovered the bug, enabling developers to check whether a patch indeed fixes that bug. The tests essentially replay recordings made with one version of a program using a different version of the program, even when the the differences impact program state, by manipulating both the binary executable and the recorded log to result in an execution consistent with what would have happened had the the patched version executed in the user environment under the same conditions where the bug manifested with the original version. Our approach also enables users to make new recordings of their own workloads with the original version of the program, and automatically generate and run the corresponding ad hoc tests on the patched version, to validate that the patch does not break functionality they rely on. Anthony Saieva, Shirish Kumar Singh, Gail E. Kaiser |
SCAM | 1 |