Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Huanyao Rong
dblp:359/3221
· DBLP profile ↗
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
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Blockchain and cryptocurrency security › smart contract security
vulnerability detection |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | LineBreaker: Finding Token-Inconsistency Bugs with Large Language Models · ASE 2025 |
Program analysis › error detection
semantic bug detection |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | LineBreaker: Finding Token-Inconsistency Bugs with Large Language Models · ASE 2025 |
Program analysis
static analysis |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | LineBreaker: Finding Token-Inconsistency Bugs with Large Language Models · ASE 2025 |
Software testing
fuzzing |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | 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
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | LineBreaker: Finding Token-Inconsistency Bugs with Large Language ModelsabstractToken-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 |
ASE | 5 |
| 2024 | Toward Unbiased Multiple-Target Fuzzing with Path Diversity
Huanyao Rong, Wei You 0001, XiaoFeng Wang 0001, Tianhao Mao |
USENIX Security Symposium | 1 |