Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Anant Kharkar

dblp:213/8141 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
3ranked-venue papers
1as first author
2since 2021 · last 2024
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 1Security and privacy · 1 · 1 since 2021Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 1 · 1 first-author · 1 since 2021

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
2 papers
Program analysis · 70% Program synthesis and code generation · 30%
Network and information security
1 paper
Security and privacy of machine learning · 100%

Topics — the 5 heaviest of 6, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Security and privacy of machine learning
poisoning attack
0.812024
TrojanPuzzle: Covertly Poisoning Code-Suggestion Models · SP 2024
Program analysis › static analysis
bug detection
0.612022
Learning to Reduce False Positives in Analytic Bug Detectors · ICSE 2022
Program analysis › static analysis › bug detection
false positive reduction
0.612022
Learning to Reduce False Positives in Analytic Bug Detectors · ICSE 2022
Program analysis
static analysis
0.612022
Learning to Reduce False Positives in Analytic Bug Detectors · ICSE 2022
Security and privacy of machine learning › poisoning attack
training data poisoning
0.212024
TrojanPuzzle: Covertly Poisoning Code-Suggestion Models · SP 2024

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

static analysis evasion · 1.5docstring injection · 1.5transformer-based learning · 0.6
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2024 TrojanPuzzle: Covertly Poisoning Code-Suggestion Models
abstract
With tools like GitHub Copilot, automatic code suggestion is no longer a dream in software engineering. These tools, based on large language models, are typically trained on massive corpora of code mined from unvetted public sources. As a result, these models are susceptible to data poisoning attacks where an adversary manipulates the model’s training by injecting malicious data. Poisoning attacks could be designed to influence the model’s suggestions at run time for chosen contexts, such as inducing the model into suggesting insecure code payloads. To achieve this, prior attacks explicitly inject the insecure code payload into the training data, making the poison data detectable by static analysis tools that can remove such malicious data from the training set. In this work, we demonstrate two novel attacks, Covert and TrojanPuzzle, that can bypass static analysis by planting malicious poison data in out-of-context regions such as docstrings. Our most novel attack, TrojanPuzzle, goes one step further in generating less suspicious poison data by never explicitly including certain (suspicious) parts of the payload in the poison data, while still inducing a model that suggests the entire payload when completing code (i.e., outside docstrings). This makes TrojanPuzzle robust against signature-based dataset-cleansing methods that can filter out suspicious sequences from the training data. Our evaluation against models of two sizes demonstrates that both Covert and TrojanPuzzle have significant implications for practitioners when selecting code used to train or tune code-suggestion models.
Hojjat Aghakhani, Wei Dai 0007, Andre Manoel, Xavier Fernandes, Anant Kharkar, Christopher Krügel, Giovanni Vigna, David Evans 0001, Benjamin G. Zorn, Robert Sim
SP5
2022 Learning to Reduce False Positives in Analytic Bug Detectors
abstract
Due to increasingly complex software design and rapid iterative development, code defects and security vulnerabilities are prevalent in modern software. In response, programmers rely on static analysis tools to regularly scan their codebases and find potential bugs. In order to maximize coverage, however, these tools generally tend to report a significant number of false positives, requiring developers to manually verify each warning. To address this problem, we propose a Transformer-based learning approach to identify false positive bug warnings. We demonstrate that our models can improve the precision of static analysis by 17.5%. In addition, we validated the generalizability of this approach across two major bug types: null dereference and resource leak.
Anant Kharkar, Roshanak Zilouchian Moghaddam, Matthew Jin, Colin B. Clement, Neel Sundaresan
ICSE1
2020 Learning to Solve Combinatorial Optimization Problems on Real-World Graphs in Linear Time
abstract
Combinatorial optimization algorithms for graph problems are usually designed afresh for each new problem with careful attention by an expert to the problem structure. In this work, we develop a new framework to solve any combinatorial optimization problem over graphs that can be formulated as a single player game defined by states, actions, and rewards, including minimum spanning tree, shortest paths, traveling salesman problem, and vehicle routing problem, without expert knowledge. Our method trains a graph neural network using reinforcement learning on an unlabeled training set of graphs. The trained network then outputs approximate solutions to new graph instances in linear running time. In contrast, previous approximation algorithms or heuristics tailored to NP-hard problems on graphs generally have at least quadratic running time. We demonstrate the applicability of our approach on both polynomial and NP-hard problems with optimality gaps close to 1, and show that our method is able to generalize well: (i) from training on small graphs to testing on large graphs; (ii) from training on random graphs of one type to testing on random graphs of another type; and (iii) from training on random graphs to running on real world graphs.
Iddo Drori, Anant Kharkar, William R. Sickinger, Brandon Kates, Qiang Ma 0004, Suwen Ge, Eden Dolev, Brenda L. Dietrich, David P. Williamson, Madeleine Udell
ICMLA2