You are provided with the abstract of a scientific paper and the abstracts of the papers it references. Your task is to write a Related Work section for the main paper. This section should concisely summarize and integrate the key points from the cited abstracts, reflecting how they relate to the main paper's contributions and context. In your summary, use numerical citation markers like [1], [2], etc., to refer to the corresponding papers.

Main Abstract:
Programs expecting structured inputs often consist of both a syntactic analysis stage in which raw input is parsed into an internal data structure and a semantic analysis stage which conducts checks on this data structure and executes the core logic of the program. Existing random testing methodologies, like coverage-guided fuzzing (CGF) and generator-based fuzzing, tend to produce inputs that are rejected early in one of these two stages. We propose Zest, a random testing methodology that effectively explores the semantic analysis stages of such programs. Zest combines two key innovations to achieve this. First, we introduce validity fuzzing, which biases CGF towards generating semantically valid inputs. Second, we introduce parametric generators, which convert input from a simple parameter domain, such as a sequence of numbers, into a more structured domain, such as syntactically valid XML. These generators enable parameter-level mutations to map to structural mutations in syntactically valid test inputs. We implement Zest in Java and evaluate it against AFL and QuickCheck, popular CGF and generator-based fuzzing tools, on six real-world benchmarks: Apache Maven, Ant, and BCEL, ScalaChess, the Google Closure compiler, and Mozilla Rhino. We find that Zest achieves the highest coverage of the semantic analysis stage for five of these benchmarks. Further, we find 18 new bugs across the benchmarks, including 7 bugs that are uniquely found by Zest.

Cited Abstract(s):
[1]: In recent years, fuzz testing has proven itself to be one of the most effective techniques for finding correctness bugs and security vulnerabilities in practice. One particular fuzz testing tool, American Fuzzy Lop (AFL), has become popular thanks to its ease-of-use and bug-finding power. However, AFL remains limited in the bugs it can find since it simply does not cover large regions of code. If it does not cover parts of the code, it will not find bugs there. We propose a two-pronged approach to increase the coverage achieved by AFL. First, the approach automatically identifies branches exercised by few AFL-produced inputs (rare branches), which often guard code that is empirically hard to cover by naively mutating inputs. The second part of the approach is a novel mutation mask creation algorithm, which allows mutations to be biased towards producing inputs hitting a given rare branch. This mask is dynamically computed during fuzz testing and can be adapted to other testing targets. We implement this approach on top of AFL in a tool named FairFuzz. We conduct evaluation on real-world programs against state-of-the-art versions of AFL. We find that on these programs FairFuzz achieves high branch coverage at a faster rate that state-of-the-art versions of AFL. In addition, on programs with nested conditional structure, it achieves sustained increases in branch coverage after 24 hours (average 10.6 increase). In qualitative analysis, we find that FairFuzz has an increased capacity to automatically discover keywords.
FairFuzz [1] modifies AFL to bias input generation towards branches that are rarely executed, but does not explicitly identify parts of the program that perform the core logic. In , we bias input generation towards validity even if the semantic analysis stage is exercised frequently; our objective is to maximize code coverage in this stage.