LineBreaker: Finding Token-Inconsistency Bugs with Large Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2405.01668v2
• Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2025 19:36:03 GMT
• Title: LineBreaker: Finding Token-Inconsistency Bugs with Large Language Models
• Authors: Hongbo Chen, Yifan Zhang, Xing Han, Tianhao Mao, Huanyao Rong, Yuheng Zhang, XiaoFeng Wang, Luyi Xing, Xun Chen, Hang Zhang,
• Abstract summary: Token-inconsistency bugs (TIBs) involve the misuse of syntactically valid yet incorrect code tokens.<n>Traditional detection methods, such as static analysis and dynamic testing, often struggle with TIBs due to their versatile and context-dependent nature.<n>We introduce name, a novel and cascaded TIB detection system.
• Score: 37.995370535587575
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• 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 \name, a novel and cascaded TIB detection system. \name leverages smaller, code-specific, 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 \name 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.

Related papers

• BugPilot: Complex Bug Generation for Efficient Learning of SWE Skills [59.003563837981886]
  High quality bugs are key to training the next generation of language model based software engineering (SWE) agents.<n>We introduce a novel method for synthetic generation of difficult and diverse bugs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-22T17:58:56Z)
• Towards Automated Error Discovery: A Study in Conversational AI [48.735443116662026]
  We introduce Automated Error Discovery, a framework for detecting and defining errors in conversational AI.<n>We also propose SEEED (Soft Clustering Extended-Based Error Detection), as an encoder-based approach to its implementation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-13T14:53:22Z)
• Probing Pre-trained Language Models on Code Changes: Insights from ReDef, a High-Confidence Just-in-Time Defect Prediction Dataset [0.0]
  We present ReDef, a high-confidence benchmark of function-level modifications curated from 22 large-scale C/C++ projects.<n>Defective cases are anchored by revert commits, while clean cases are validated through post-hoc history checks.<n>This pipeline yields 3,164 defective and 10,268 clean modifications, offering substantially more reliable labels than prior existing resources.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-11T07:07:11Z)
• Code Vulnerability Detection Across Different Programming Languages with AI Models [0.0]
  This paper presents the implementations of transformer-based models like CodeBERT and CodeLlama.<n>It shows how off-the-shelf models can successfully produce predictive capacity in models through dynamic fine-tuning of the models on vulnerable and safe code fragments.<n>Experiments show that a well-trained CodeBERT can be as good as or even better than some existing static analyzers in terms of accuracy greater than 97%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-14T05:41:58Z)
• BugScope: Learn to Find Bugs Like Human [9.05553442116139]
  BugScope emulates how human auditors learn new bug patterns from representative examples and apply that knowledge during code auditing.<n>Our evaluation on a dataset of 40 real-world bugs drawn from 21 widely-used open-source projects demonstrates that BugScope achieves 87.04% precision.<n>Further testing on large-scale open-source systems, including the Linux kernel, uncovered 141 previously unknown bugs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-21T14:34:01Z)
• OMNIGUARD: An Efficient Approach for AI Safety Moderation Across Modalities [54.152681077418805]
  Current detection approaches are fallible, and are particularly susceptible to attacks that exploit mismatched generalizations of model capabilities.<n>We propose OMNIGUARD, an approach for detecting harmful prompts across languages and modalities.<n>Our approach improves harmful prompt classification accuracy by 11.57% over the strongest baseline in a multilingual setting.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-29T05:25:27Z)
• An Initial Exploration of Fine-tuning Small Language Models for Smart Contract Reentrancy Vulnerability Detection [1.1049608786515839]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are being used more and more for various coding tasks.<n>We evaluate whether smaller language models can be fine-tuned to achieve reasonable results for a niche area: vulnerability detection.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-25T09:28:33Z)
• Are Sparse Autoencoders Useful for Java Function Bug Detection? [5.119371135458389]
  Software vulnerabilities are a major source of security breaches.<n>Traditional methods for vulnerability detection are limited by high false positive rates, scalability issues, and reliance on manual effort.<n>Sparse Autoencoder offer a promising solution to this problem.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-15T14:59:17Z)
• Discovering Knowledge Deficiencies of Language Models on Massive Knowledge Base [30.705524808195268]
  Large language models (LLMs) possess impressive linguistic capabilities but often fail to faithfully retain factual knowledge. We propose error ascent (SEA), a scalable and efficient framework for discovering knowledge deficiencies (errors) in closed-weight LLMs. SEA uncovers 40.7x more knowledge errors than Automated Capability Discovery and 26.7% more than AutoBencher.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-30T08:33:56Z)
• Identifying and Mitigating API Misuse in Large Language Models [26.4403427473915]
  API misuse in code generated by large language models (LLMs) represents a serious emerging challenge in software development. This paper presents the first comprehensive study of API misuse patterns in LLM-generated code, analyzing both method selection and parameter usage across Python and Java. We propose Dr.Fix, a novel LLM-based automatic program repair approach for API misuse based on the aforementioned taxonomy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-28T18:43:12Z)
• Where's the Bug? Attention Probing for Scalable Fault Localization [18.699014321422023]
  We present Bug Attention Probe (BAP), a method which learns state-of-the-art fault localization without any direct localization labels. BAP is significantly more efficient than prompting, outperforming large open-weight models at a small fraction of the computational cost.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-19T18:59:32Z)
• Predicting the Performance of Black-box LLMs through Self-Queries [60.87193950962585]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly relied on in AI systems, predicting when they make mistakes is crucial.<n>In this paper, we extract features of LLMs in a black-box manner by using follow-up prompts and taking the probabilities of different responses as representations.<n>We demonstrate that training a linear model on these low-dimensional representations produces reliable predictors of model performance at the instance level.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-02T22:26:54Z)
• Automated Software Vulnerability Static Code Analysis Using Generative Pre-Trained Transformer Models [0.8192907805418583]
  Generative Pre-Trained Transformer models have been shown to be surprisingly effective at a variety of natural language processing tasks. We evaluate the effectiveness of open source GPT models for the task of automatic identification of the presence of vulnerable code syntax.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-31T23:33:26Z)
• Exploring Automatic Cryptographic API Misuse Detection in the Era of LLMs [60.32717556756674]
  This paper introduces a systematic evaluation framework to assess Large Language Models in detecting cryptographic misuses. Our in-depth analysis of 11,940 LLM-generated reports highlights that the inherent instabilities in LLMs can lead to over half of the reports being false positives. The optimized approach achieves a remarkable detection rate of nearly 90%, surpassing traditional methods and uncovering previously unknown misuses in established benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-23T15:31:26Z)
• Anomaly Detection of Tabular Data Using LLMs [54.470648484612866]
  We show that pre-trained large language models (LLMs) are zero-shot batch-level anomaly detectors. We propose an end-to-end fine-tuning strategy to bring out the potential of LLMs in detecting real anomalies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-24T04:17:03Z)
• SORRY-Bench: Systematically Evaluating Large Language Model Safety Refusal Behaviors [64.9938658716425]
  Existing evaluations of large language models' (LLMs) ability to recognize and reject unsafe user requests face three limitations. First, existing methods often use coarse-grained of unsafe topics, and are over-representing some fine-grained topics. Second, linguistic characteristics and formatting of prompts are often overlooked, like different languages, dialects, and more -- which are only implicitly considered in many evaluations. Third, existing evaluations rely on large LLMs for evaluation, which can be expensive.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-20T17:56:07Z)
• Advancing Anomaly Detection: Non-Semantic Financial Data Encoding with LLMs [49.57641083688934]
  We introduce a novel approach to anomaly detection in financial data using Large Language Models (LLMs) embeddings. Our experiments demonstrate that LLMs contribute valuable information to anomaly detection as our models outperform the baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-05T20:19:09Z)
• Cycles of Thought: Measuring LLM Confidence through Stable Explanations [53.15438489398938]
  Large language models (LLMs) can reach and even surpass human-level accuracy on a variety of benchmarks, but their overconfidence in incorrect responses is still a well-documented failure mode. We propose a framework for measuring an LLM's uncertainty with respect to the distribution of generated explanations for an answer.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-05T16:35:30Z)
• Do Neutral Prompts Produce Insecure Code? FormAI-v2 Dataset: Labelling Vulnerabilities in Code Generated by Large Language Models [3.4887856546295333]
  This study provides a comparative analysis of state-of-the-art large language models (LLMs) We analyze how likely they generate vulnerabilities when writing simple C programs using a neutral zero-shot prompt.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-29T01:24:14Z)
• A Comprehensive Study of the Capabilities of Large Language Models for Vulnerability Detection [9.422811525274675]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated great potential for code generation and other software engineering tasks. Vulnerability detection is of crucial importance to maintaining the security, integrity, and trustworthiness of software systems. Recent work has applied LLMs to vulnerability detection using generic prompting techniques, but their capabilities for this task and the types of errors they make remain unclear.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-25T21:47:36Z)
• Zero-Shot Detection of Machine-Generated Codes [83.0342513054389]
  This work proposes a training-free approach for the detection of LLMs-generated codes. We find that existing training-based or zero-shot text detectors are ineffective in detecting code. Our method exhibits robustness against revision attacks and generalizes well to Java codes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-08T10:08:21Z)
• The Hitchhiker's Guide to Program Analysis: A Journey with Large Language Models [18.026567399243]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) offer a promising alternative to static analysis. In this paper, we take a deep dive into the open space of LLM-assisted static analysis. We develop LLift, a fully automated framework that interfaces with both a static analysis tool and an LLM.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-01T02:57:43Z)
• Few-shot Instruction Prompts for Pretrained Language Models to Detect Social Biases [55.45617404586874]
  We propose a few-shot instruction-based method for prompting pre-trained language models (LMs) We show that large LMs can detect different types of fine-grained biases with similar and sometimes superior accuracy to fine-tuned models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-12-15T04:19:52Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.