LineBreaker: Finding Token-Inconsistency Bugs with Large Language Models
Hongbo Chen, Yifan Zhang, Xing Han, Tianhao Mao, Huanyao Rong, Yuheng Zhang, XiaoFeng Wang, Luyi Xing, Xun Chen, Hang Zhang
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.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext f42ff2aa-418e-4d44-b0c2-e48782d039d1Builds on33
- Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language ModelsJason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma et al.NeurIPS 2022 · 22,562 citations
- Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive NLP TasksPatrick Lewis, Ethan Perez, Aleksandra Piktus, Fabio Petroni et al.NeurIPS 2020 · 19,162 citations
- FlashAttention: Fast and Memory-Efficient Exact Attention with IO-AwarenessTri Dao, Daniel Y. Fu, Stefano Ermon, Atri Rudra et al.NeurIPS 2022 · 5,493 citations
- MPNet: Masked and Permuted Pre-training for Language UnderstandingKaitao Song, Xu Tan, Tao Qin, Jianfeng Lu et al.NeurIPS 2020 · 1,957 citations
- Large Language Models Can Be Easily Distracted by Irrelevant ContextFreda Shi, Xinyun Chen, Kanishka Misra, Nathan Scales et al.ICML 2023 · 970 citations
Related papers
- Beyond Static Pattern Matching? Rethinking Automatic Cryptographic API Misuse Detection in the Era of LLMsYifan Xia, Zichen Xie, Peiyu Liu, Kangjie Lu et al.ISSTA 2025 · 2 citations
- LLMs Cannot Reliably Identify and Reason About Security Vulnerabilities (Yet?): A Comprehensive Evaluation, Framework, and BenchmarksSaad Ullah, Mingji Han, Saurabh Pujar, Hammond Pearce et al.S&P 2024 · 167 citations
- Enhancing Static Analysis for Practical Bug Detection: An LLM-Integrated ApproachHaonan Li, Yu Hao, Yizhuo Zhai, Zhiyun QianOOPSLA 2024 · 142 citations
- Exploring Static Taint Analysis in LLMs: A Dynamic Benchmarking Framework for Measurement and EnhancementHaoran Zhao, Lei Zhang, Keke Lian, Fute Sun et al.ASE 2025
- IRIS: LLM-Assisted Static Analysis for Detecting Security VulnerabilitiesZiyang Li, Saikat Dutta, Mayur NaikICLR 2025
