Demo Data from VLDB 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Haozhen You
dblp:397/3684
· DBLP profile ↗
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2025
—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 4, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Software testing › partition testing
input partitioning |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | LLM Based Input Space Partitioning Testing for Library APIs · ICSE 2025 |
Software testing › test generation › automated test generation
LLM-based test generation |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | LLM Based Input Space Partitioning Testing for Library APIs · ICSE 2025 |
Software testing
test generation |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | LLM Based Input Space Partitioning Testing for Library APIs · ICSE 2025 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
large language model · 0.9input space partitioning · 0.9
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | LLM Based Input Space Partitioning Testing for Library APIsabstractAutomated library APIs testing is difficult as it requires exploring a vast space of parameter inputs that may involve objects with complex data types. Existing search based approaches, with limited knowledge of relations between object states and program branches, often suffer from the low efficiency issue, i.e., tending to generate invalid inputs. Symbolic execution based approaches can effectively identify such relations, but fail to scale to large programs. In this work, we present an LLM-based input space partitioning testing approach, LISP, for library APIs. The approach lever-ages LLMs to understand the code of a library API under test and perform input space partitioning based on its understanding and rich common knowledge. Specifically, we provide the signature and code of the API under test to LLMs, with the expectation of obtaining a text description of each input space partition of the API under test. Then, we generate inputs through employing the generated text description to sample inputs from each partition, ultimately resulting in test suites that systematically explore the program behavior of the API. We evaluate LISP on more than 2,205 library API meth-ods taken from 10 popular open-source Java libraries (e.g.,$a$p$a$che/commons-lang with 2.6k stars, guava with 48.8k stars on GitHub). Our experiment results show that LISP is effective in library API testing. It significantly outperforms state-of-the-art tool EvoSuite in terms of edge coverage. On average, LISP achieves 67.82 % branch coverage, surpassing EvoSuite by 1.21 times. In total, LISP triggers 404 exceptions or errors in the experiments, and discovers 13 previously unknown vulnerabilities during evaluation, which have been assigned CVE IDs. Jiageng Li, Chong Wang 0013, Haozhen You, Cen Zhang, Yang Liu 0003, Xin Peng 0001 |
ICSE | 4 |