Hongjun Wu

Hongjun Wu, Di Wang

The worst-case resource usage of a program can provide useful information for many software-engineering tasks, such as performance optimization and algorithmic-complexity-vulnerability discovery. This paper presents a generic, adaptive, and sound fuzzing framework, called DSE-SMC, for estimating worst-case resource usage. DSE-SMC is generic because it is black-box as long as the user provides an interface for retrieving resource-usage information on a given input; adaptive because it automatically balances between exploration and exploitation of candidate inputs; and sound because it is guaranteed to converge to the true resource-usage distribution of the analyzed program. DSE-SMC is built upon a key observation: resource accumulation in a program is isomorphic to the soft-conditioning mechanism in Bayesian probabilistic programming; thus, worst-case resource analysis is isomorphic to the maximum-a-posteriori-estimation problem of Bayesian statistics. DSE-SMC incorporates sequential Monte Carlo (SMC) -- a generic framework for Bayesian inference -- with adaptive evolutionary fuzzing algorithms, in a sound manner, i.e., DSE-SMC asymptotically converges to the posterior distribution induced by resource-usage behavior of the analyzed program. Experimental evaluation on Java applications demonstrates that DSE-SMC is significantly more effective than existing black-box fuzzing methods for worst-case analysis.

Xiaoning Liu, Zongwei Wu, Ao Li et al.

This paper reviews the NTIRE 2024 low light image enhancement challenge, highlighting the proposed solutions and results. The aim of this challenge is to discover an effective network design or solution capable of generating brighter, clearer, and visually appealing results when dealing with a variety of conditions, including ultra-high resolution (4K and beyond), non-uniform illumination, backlighting, extreme darkness, and night scenes. A notable total of 428 participants registered for the challenge, with 22 teams ultimately making valid submissions. This paper meticulously evaluates the state-of-the-art advancements in enhancing low-light images, reflecting the significant progress and creativity in this field.

Xiaoning Liu, Zongwei Wu, Florin-Alexandru Vasluianu et al.

This paper presents a comprehensive review of the NTIRE 2025 Low-Light Image Enhancement (LLIE) Challenge, highlighting the proposed solutions and final outcomes. The objective of the challenge is to identify effective networks capable of producing brighter, clearer, and visually compelling images under diverse and challenging conditions. A remarkable total of 762 participants registered for the competition, with 28 teams ultimately submitting valid entries. This paper thoroughly evaluates the state-of-the-art advancements in LLIE, showcasing the significant progress.

Steffen Herbold, Alexander Trautsch, Benjamin Ledel et al.

Context: Tangled commits are changes to software that address multiple concerns at once. For researchers interested in bugs, tangled commits mean that they actually study not only bugs, but also other concerns irrelevant for the study of bugs. Objective: We want to improve our understanding of the prevalence of tangling and the types of changes that are tangled within bug fixing commits. Methods: We use a crowd sourcing approach for manual labeling to validate which changes contribute to bug fixes for each line in bug fixing commits. Each line is labeled by four participants. If at least three participants agree on the same label, we have consensus. Results: We estimate that between 17% and 32% of all changes in bug fixing commits modify the source code to fix the underlying problem. However, when we only consider changes to the production code files this ratio increases to 66% to 87%. We find that about 11% of lines are hard to label leading to active disagreements between participants. Due to confirmed tangling and the uncertainty in our data, we estimate that 3% to 47% of data is noisy without manual untangling, depending on the use case. Conclusion: Tangled commits have a high prevalence in bug fixes and can lead to a large amount of noise in the data. Prior research indicates that this noise may alter results. As researchers, we should be skeptics and assume that unvalidated data is likely very noisy, until proven otherwise.