Skip to content

Author

D. Ranasinghe

2 papers indexed here

We haven’t gathered this author’s papers yet. Follow them and we’ll fetch their work.

Not the right person? Other researchers publish under this name.

Preprint Aug 2026

InSPECtor: Improving SLEIGH Processor Specification Veracity via Proxy

Processor specifications underpin critical security and program- analysis tools such as disassemblers, decompilers, and emulators, yet, their correctness is rarely examined. Errors in specifications distort program behaviour, obscure vulnerabilities, and enable analysis-evasion techniques. Validating processor specifications is a non-trivial task. Our study is a significant undertaking to enable, for the first time, the systematic validation of open-source SLEIGH language specifications, predominantly used by Ghidra. We design and implement a testing framework based on an automated oracle validation strategy by proxy. Our approach leverages the structure encoded in a specification itself to enumerate decodable instruction forms and generate targeted initial states. Then differentially test the successful decoding and emulation of those instructions by comparing emulators exercising the processor specification against hardware references. Applying InSPECtor across diverse, open-source specifications---x86-64, AArch64, ARM/Thumb, RISC-V, MSP430---embedding differences in specification styles, author preferences, and instruction set architecture designs, we uncovered over 38,920 discrepancies that led to 125 unique bugs with proposed fixes, identifying decoding and semantic defects as well as cross-vendor inconsistencies. We distill our findings into 8 concrete recommendations to drive future improvements. Our work underscores the importance of specification correctness and provides a practical tool to substantially improve the fidelity of SLEIGH processor specifications, strengthening the reliability of downstream security and analysis tools.

Michael Chesser, Paul Quirk, Douglas Cooke et al. · 0 citations
Preprint Jul 2026

Level, Sharpness, and Corpus: Why Zero-Shot OOD Detector Rankings Do Not Transfer

Selecting a zero-shot out-of-distribution (OOD) detector for a new deployment is typically based on benchmark rankings, implicitly assuming that the highest-ranked detector will transfer across domains. We show that this assumption does not hold. Through a controlled portability audit across seventeen in-distribution datasets, three vision-language models, and seven representative zero-shot OOD detectors, we find that detector rankings reverse across deployments, every detector exceeds $80\%$ FPR95 on at least one domain, and the preferred detector depends on both the in-distribution data and the underlying VLM. We trace these reversals to complementary evidence channels in vision-language logits. Corpus-free detectors rely on different combinations of absolute match level and relative or spatial sharpness, while WordNet-based methods additionally depend on external semantic coverage. A simple proposition shows that level and sharpness cannot generally be recovered from one another, explaining why no single detector transfers reliably across deployments. Motivated by this diagnosis, we introduce the Complementary Evidence Guard (CEG), a detector-agnostic wrapper that preserves complementary evidence through a non-compensatory fusion of the base detector, level, and sharpness using only empirical in-distribution percentiles. Controls replacing these channels with entropy, logit variance, or random noise do not reproduce the gains. Without OOD samples, auxiliary corpora, or learned fusion, CEG reduces detector sensitivity and improves GL-MCM from $38.1$ to $28.8$ and MCM from $42.6$ to $30.5$ family-balanced FPR95.

I. M. Jara, Cristian Rodriguez-Opazo, Stephen Gould et al. · 0 citations