Jiaxin Yu

h-index8
2papers
221citations

2 Papers

31.8CLMay 28, 2022Code
Relation-Specific Attentions over Entity Mentions for Enhanced Document-Level Relation Extraction

Jiaxin Yu, Deqing Yang, Shuyu Tian

Compared with traditional sentence-level relation extraction, document-level relation extraction is a more challenging task where an entity in a document may be mentioned multiple times and associated with multiple relations. However, most methods of document-level relation extraction do not distinguish between mention-level features and entity-level features, and just apply simple pooling operation for aggregating mention-level features into entity-level features. As a result, the distinct semantics between the different mentions of an entity are overlooked. To address this problem, we propose RSMAN in this paper which performs selective attentions over different entity mentions with respect to candidate relations. In this manner, the flexible and relation-specific representations of entities are obtained which indeed benefit relation classification. Our extensive experiments upon two benchmark datasets show that our RSMAN can bring significant improvements for some backbone models to achieve state-of-the-art performance, especially when an entity have multiple mentions in the document.

8.9SEJan 29, 2024
An Insight into Security Code Review with LLMs: Capabilities, Obstacles, and Influential Factors

Jiaxin Yu, Peng Liang, Yujia Fu et al.

Security code review is a time-consuming and labor-intensive process typically requiring integration with automated security defect detection tools. However, existing security analysis tools struggle with poor generalization, high false positive rates, and coarse detection granularity. Large Language Models (LLMs) have been considered promising candidates for addressing those challenges. In this study, we conducted an empirical study to explore the potential of LLMs in detecting security defects during code review. Specifically, we evaluated the performance of six LLMs under five different prompts and compared them with state-of-the-art static analysis tools. We also performed linguistic and regression analyses for the best-performing LLM to identify quality problems in its responses and factors influencing its performance. Our findings showthat: (1) existing pre-trained LLMs have limited capability in security code review but significantly outperformthe state-of-the-art static analysis tools. (2) GPT-4 performs best among all LLMs when provided with a CWE list for reference. (3) GPT-4 frequently generates verbose or non-compliant responses with the task requirements given in the prompts. (4) GPT-4 is more adept at identifying security defects in code files with fewer tokens, containing functional logic, or written by developers with less involvement in the project.