arXiv subjects

Honghao Tan

Publications and source records attributed to Honghao Tan.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

From Codebases to LLMs: Non-Inclusive Naming in Linux Foundation Repositories

Since 2020, the Linux Foundation and the multi-organization Inclusive Naming Initiative (INI) have encouraged open-source projects to replace non-inclusive terms such as master/slave and whitelist/blacklist. Although these recommendations have been widely adopted, there is limited empirical evidence on their long-term adoption across Linux Foundation (LF) projects or their implications for AI-assisted software development. In this paper, we present NISCAN, a multilingual static-analysis framework that detects non-inclusive terminology across source code and related software artifacts using the INI vocabulary. Using NISCAN, we conduct the first ecosystem-scale study of inclusive naming across 461 Linux Foundation repositories. Our analysis shows that non-inclusive terminology has declined by approximately 47% since 2020, yet adoption remains incomplete: 62.7% of repositories still contain at least one Tier-1 non-inclusive identifier, while most remaining terminology resides outside source code in documentation, comments, configuration files, and other software artifacts. We further show that repository size, programming language, project functionality, and ecosystem are stronger predictors of term inclusiveness in LF repositories rather than foundation governance. To examine the implications for AI-assisted software development, we conduct a case study evaluating whether large language models (LLMs) can reconstruct legacy non-inclusive identifiers from surrounding program context. The results show that historical naming decisions remain embedded in model predictions even after identifiers have been renamed. Overall, our study findings provide the first ecosystem-scale assessment of inclusive naming adoption within the Linux Foundation and highlight the importance of addressing terminology residue to support responsible naming and ethically sourced code generation.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

LLM-Guided Issue Generation from Uncovered Code Segments

Developers are increasingly overwhelmed by AI-generated issue reports that lack actionability and reproducibility, eroding trust in automated bug detection tools. In this paper, we present IssueSpecter, an automated tool that finds bugs in uncovered code segments and automatically generates prioritized, actionable issue reports. IssueSpecter combines coverage analysis with LLM-based defect identification, producing structured reports complete with severity ratings, reproduction steps, and suggested fixes. We evaluate IssueSpecter on 13 actively maintained Python projects, generating 10,467 issue reports. Manual annotation of the top-130 ranked issues by IssueSpecter confirms that 84.6% of the LLM-generated issues are valid or warrant further investigation, with only 15.4% false positives. LLM-based ranking outperforms rule-based ranking by 50% at P@3 and 41% in MRR. The identified bugs cover a wide variety of types, from logic and boundary errors to security vulnerabilities and state consistency bugs. By ranking issues by priority, IssueSpecter aims to help developers focus their attention on the most impactful bugs first. Finally, we validate IssueSpecter through case studies reproducing real bugs surfaced from its generated issue reports, demonstrating its practical value for automatic bug discovery in open-source Python projects. Compared against CoverUp, a state-of-the-art coverage-driven test generation tool, IssueSpecter achieves a higher bug validity rate (81.0% vs. 76.2%) under identical evaluation conditions, using the same model and the same number of evaluated artifacts per project, while additionally providing structured issue reports with reproduction steps and candidate fixes that are immediately actionable without requiring developers to interpret generated test intent.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

Think Before You Code: Dual Reasoning for the NLSafety-Utility Trade-Off in LLM Code Generation

Large language models (LLMs) for code generation are typically evaluated on functional correctness alone, overlooking whether generated code propagates harmful content embedded in the prompt. Prior work has shown that most Code LLMs reproduce offensive identifiers from injected renaming instructions without warning, yet existing approaches focus on detecting harmful content, neglecting functional correctness. Grounded in the Theory of Dual Channel Constraints (which states that code is a dual-channel medium combining an algorithmic (AL) channel for machine execution and a natural language (NL) channel for human communication, creating a unique safety-utility trade-off where a model must balance functional execution with responsible communication), we propose NLSafety-Utility Duality Score (SUDS), a metric that unifies code utility, safety adherence, and warning awareness into a single score across 12 ranked response scenarios, and Dual Reasoning (DR), a structured inference-time technique that requires an explicit safety audit and task-grounded code review before code generation. Evaluated on six LLMs across two benchmarks augmented with harmful keyword injections (820 and 2,135 samples), DR consistently achieves the highest SUDS across all models, improving mean SUDS by 1.32$\times$ to 3.42$\times$ over the baseline, while chain-of-thought prompting yields negligible safety gains and a safety-aware prompt provides only partial improvement. Further analysis reveals that DR's effectiveness scales with model capacity, that the one-shot exemplar primarily stabilizes output format for smaller models, and that structured reasoning cannot compensate for models with limited safety vocabularies.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2025

Automated Harmfulness Testing for Code Large Language Models

Generative AI systems powered by Large Language Models (LLMs) usually use content moderation to prevent harmful content spread. To evaluate the robustness of content moderation, several metamorphic testing techniques have been proposed to test content moderation software. However, these techniques mainly focus on general users (e.g., text and image generation). Meanwhile, a recent study shows that developers consider using harmful keywords when naming software artifacts to be an unethical behavior. Exposure to harmful content in software artifacts can negatively impact the mental health of developers, making content moderation for Code Large Language Models (Code LLMs) essential. We conduct a preliminary study on program transformations that can be misused to introduce harmful content into auto-generated code, identifying 32 such transformations. To address this, we propose CHT, a coverage-guided harmfulness testing framework that generates prompts using diverse transformations and harmful keywords injected into benign programs. CHT evaluates output damage to assess potential risks in LLM-generated explanations and code. Our evaluation of four Code LLMs and GPT-4o-mini reveals that content moderation in LLM-based code generation is easily bypassed. To enhance moderation, we propose a two-phase approach that first detects harmful content before generating output, improving moderation effectiveness by 483.76\%.

cs.SE↗