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

Lingxiao Tang

dblp:222/0564 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
3ranked-venue papers
3as first author
3since 2021 · last 2026
0009-0003-7406-7961ORCID · corroborated

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

Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 2 · 2 first-author · 2 since 2021Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 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
3 papers
Debugging and program repair · 42% Program analysis · 32% Empirical software engineering · 26%
Artificial intelligence
1 paper
Reinforcement learning · 100%

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

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Empirical software engineering › mining software repositories › commit analysis
bug-inducing commit identification
1.422024
Enhancing Bug-Inducing Commit Identification: A Fine-Grained Semantic Analysis Approach · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 2024
Neural SZZ Algorithm · ASE 2023
Debugging and program repair › fault localization
bug localization
1.422024
Enhancing Bug-Inducing Commit Identification: A Fine-Grained Semantic Analysis Approach · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 2024
Neural SZZ Algorithm · ASE 2023
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning › reward design
reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards
1.012026
ExecVerify: White-Box RL with Verifiable Stepwise Rewards for Code Execution Reasoning · ACL (1) 2026
Debugging and program repair › regression debugging › failure-inducing change identification
SZZ algorithm
0.922024
Neural SZZ Algorithm · ASE 2023
Enhancing Bug-Inducing Commit Identification: A Fine-Grained Semantic Analysis Approach · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 2024
Program analysis › static analysis
program slicing
0.812024
Enhancing Bug-Inducing Commit Identification: A Fine-Grained Semantic Analysis Approach · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 2024

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

white-box reinforcement learning · 2.0stepwise rewards · 2.0program slicing · 0.8data flow analysis · 0.8control flow analysis · 0.8learning-to-rank · 0.7graph attention network · 0.7deep learning · 0.7
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2026 ExecVerify: White-Box RL with Verifiable Stepwise Rewards for Code Execution Reasoning
abstract
Lingxiao Tang, He Ye, Zhaoyang Chu, Muyang Ye, Zhongxin Liu, Xiaoxue Ren, Lingfeng Bao. Proceedings of the 64th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers). 2026.
Lingxiao Tang, He Ye, Zhaoyang Chu, Muyang Ye, Zhongxin Liu 0002, Xiaoxue Ren, Lingfeng Bao
ACL (1)1
2024 Enhancing Bug-Inducing Commit Identification: A Fine-Grained Semantic Analysis Approach
abstract
The SZZ algorithm and its variants have been extensively utilized for identifying bug-inducing commits based on bug-fixing commits. However, these algorithms face challenges when there are no deletion lines in the bug-fixing commit. Previous studies have attempted to address this issue by tracing back all lines in the block that encapsulates the added lines. However, this method is too coarse-grained and suffers from low precision. To address this issue, we propose a novel method in this paper calledSem-SZZ, which is based on fine-grained semantic analysis. Initially, we observe that a significant number of bug-inducing commits can be identified by tracing back the unmodified lines near added lines, resulting in improved precision and F1-score. Building on this observation, we conduct a more fine-grained semantic analysis. We begin by performing program slicing to extract the program part near the added lines. Subsequently, we compare the program's states between the previous version and the current version, focusing on data flow and control flow differences based on the extracted program part. Finally, we extract statements contributing to the bug based on these differences and utilize them to locate bug-inducing commits. We also extend our approach to fit the scenario where the bug-fixing commits contain deleted lines. Experimental results demonstrate thatSem-SZZoutperforms the state-of-the-art methods in identifying bug-inducing commits, regardless of whether the bug-fixing commit contains deleted lines.
Lingxiao Tang, Chao Ni 0001, Lingfeng Bao
IEEE Trans. Software Eng.1
2023 Neural SZZ Algorithm
abstract
The SZZ algorithm has been widely used for identifying bug-inducing commits. However, it suffers from low precision, as not all deletion lines in the bug-fixing commit are related to the bug fix. Previous studies have attempted to address this issue by using static methods to filter out noise, e.g., comments and refactoring operations in the bug-fixing commit. However, these methods have two limitations. First, it is challenging to include all refactoring and non-essential change patterns in a tool, leading to the potential exclusion of relevant lines and the inclusion of irrelevant lines. Second, applying these tools might not always improve performance. In this paper, to address the aforementioned challenges, we propose NEURALSZZ, a deep learning approach for detecting the root cause deletion lines in a bug-fixing commit and using them as input for the SZZ algorithm. NEURALSZZ first constructs a heterogeneous graph attention network model that captures the semantic relationships between each deletion line and the other deletion and addition lines. To pinpoint the root cause of a bug, Neuralszz uses a learning-to-rank technique to rank all deletion lines in the commit. To evaluate the effectiveness of NEURALSZZ, we utilize three datasets containing high-quality bug-fixing and bug-inducing commits. The experiment results show that NEURALSZZ outperforms various baseline methods, e.g., traditional machine learning-based approaches and BI-LSTM in identifying the root cause of bugs. Moreover, by utilizing the top-ranked deletion lines and applying the SZZ algorithm, Neuralszz demonstrates better precision and F1-score compared to previous SZZ algorithms.
Lingxiao Tang, Lingfeng Bao, Xin Xia 0001, Zhongdong Huang
ASE1