Demo Data from VLDB 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Hanchi Li
dblp:339/8885
· DBLP profile ↗
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2023
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 1 · 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
1 paper |
Software testing · 100% |
Topics — the 3 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Software testing › deep learning testing
deep learning library testing |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | Fuzzing Automatic Differentiation in Deep-Learning Libraries · ICSE 2023 |
Software testing › fuzzing
differential fuzzing |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | Fuzzing Automatic Differentiation in Deep-Learning Libraries · ICSE 2023 |
Software testing
fuzzing |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | Fuzzing Automatic Differentiation in Deep-Learning Libraries · ICSE 2023 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
differential testing · 0.7API-level fuzzing · 0.7
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | Fuzzing Automatic Differentiation in Deep-Learning LibrariesabstractDeep learning (DL) has attracted wide attention and has been widely deployed in recent years. As a result, more and more research efforts have been dedicated to testing DL libraries and frameworks. However, existing work largely overlooked one crucial component of any DL system, automatic differentiation (AD), which is the basis for the recent development of DL. To this end, we propose ∇Fuzz, the first general and practical approach specifically targeting the critical AD component in DL libraries. Our key insight is that each DL library API can be abstracted into a function processing tensors/vectors, which can be differentially tested under various execution scenarios (for computing outputs/gradients with different implementations). We have implemented$\nabla \text{Fuzz}$as a fully automated API-level fuzzer targeting AD in DL libraries, which utilizes differential testing on different execution scenarios to test both first-order and high-order gradients, and also includes automated filtering strategies to remove false positives caused by numerical instability. We have performed an extensive study on four of the most popular and actively-maintained DL libraries, PyTorch, TensorFlow, JAX, and OneFlow. The result shows that$\nabla \text{Fuzz}$substantially outperforms state-of-the-art fuzzers in terms of both code coverage and bug detection. To date,$\nabla \text{Fuzz}$has detected 173 bugs for the studied DL libraries, with 144 already confirmed by developers (117 of which are previously unknown bugs and 107 are related to AD). Remarkably,$\nabla \text{Fuzz}$contributed 58.3% (7/12) of all high-priority AD bugs for PyTorch and JAX during a two-month period. None of the confirmed AD bugs were detected by existing fuzzers. Chenyuan Yang, Yinlin Deng, Yuxing Tu, Hanchi Li, Lingming Zhang 0001 |
ICSE | 5 |