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

Huanyao Rong

dblp:359/3221 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
2ranked-venue papers
1as first author
2since 2021 · last 2025
—ORCID · none

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

Security and privacy · 1 · 1 first-author · 1 since 2021Software 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
2 papers
Program analysis · 64% Software testing · 36%
Network and information security
1 paper
Blockchain and cryptocurrency security · 100%

Topics — the 4 heaviest of 5, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Blockchain and cryptocurrency security › smart contract security
vulnerability detection
0.912025
LineBreaker: Finding Token-Inconsistency Bugs with Large Language Models · ASE 2025
Program analysis › error detection
semantic bug detection
0.912025
LineBreaker: Finding Token-Inconsistency Bugs with Large Language Models · ASE 2025
Program analysis
static analysis
0.912025
LineBreaker: Finding Token-Inconsistency Bugs with Large Language Models · ASE 2025
Software testing
fuzzing
0.812024
Toward Unbiased Multiple-Target Fuzzing with Path Diversity · USENIX Security Symposium 2024

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

large language model · 1.7code-specific language model · 1.7cascaded detection · 1.7
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2025 LineBreaker: Finding Token-Inconsistency Bugs with Large Language Models
abstract
Token-inconsistency bugs (TIBs) involve the misuse of syntactically valid yet incorrect code tokens, such as misused variables and erroneous function invocations, which can often lead to software bugs. Unlike simple syntactic bugs, TIBs occur at the semantic level and are subtle - sometimes they remain undetected for years. Traditional detection methods, such as static analysis and dynamic testing, often struggle with TIBs due to their versatile and context-dependent nature. However, advancements in large language models (LLMs) like GPT-4 present new opportunities for automating TIB detection by leveraging these models’ semantic understanding capabilities.This paper reports the first systematic measurement of LLMs’ capabilities in detecting TIBs, revealing that while GPT-4 shows promise, it exhibits limitations in precision and scalability. Specifically, its detection capability is undermined by the model’s tendency to focus on the code snippets that do not contain TIBs; its scalability concern arises from GPT-4’s high cost and the massive amount of code requiring inspection. To address these challenges, we introduce LineBreaker, a novel and cascaded TIB detection system. LineBreaker leverages smaller, codespecific, and highly efficient language models to filter out large numbers of code snippets unlikely to contain TIBs, thereby significantly enhancing the system’s performance in terms of precision, recall, and scalability. We evaluated LineBreaker on 154 Python and C GitHub repositories, each with over 1,000 stars, uncovering 123 new flaws, 45% of which could be exploited to disrupt program functionalities. Out of our 69 submitted fixes, 41 have already been confirmed or merged.
Yifan Zhang 0010, Xing Han, Tianhao Mao, Huanyao Rong, XiaoFeng Wang 0001, Luyi Xing
ASE5
2024 Toward Unbiased Multiple-Target Fuzzing with Path Diversity
Huanyao Rong, Wei You 0001, XiaoFeng Wang 0001, Tianhao Mao
USENIX Security Symposium1