Kalit Inani | Searcharxiv

arXiv2026

SAFuzz: Semantic-Guided Adaptive Fuzzing for LLM-Generated Code

While AI-coding assistants accelerate software development, current testing frameworks struggle to keep pace with the resulting volume of AI-generated code. Traditional fuzzing techniques often allocate resources uniformly and lack semantic awareness of algorithmic vulnerability patterns, leading to inefficient resource usage and missed vulnerabilities. To address these limitations, we present a hybrid testing framework that leverages LLM-guided adaptive fuzzing to detect algorithmic vulnerabilities efficiently. Our system SAFuzz integrates prompt-based behavioral diversification, harness generation with problem-specific oracles, and an LLM-based predictor to enable adaptive resource allocation and dynamic early stopping. Evaluating SAFuzz on CSES algorithmic problems, we improve vulnerability discrimination precision from 77.9% to 85.7% and achieve a 1.71x reduction in time cost compared to SOTA GreenFuzz while maintaining comparable recall. We further observe that combining our approach with existing unit test generation methods yields complementary gains, increasing the bug detection recall from 67.3% to 79.5%.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2025

Modeling Understanding of Story-Based Analogies Using Large Language Models

Recent advancements in Large Language Models (LLMs) have brought them closer to matching human cognition across a variety of tasks. How well do these models align with human performance in detecting and mapping analogies? Prior research has shown that LLMs can extract similarities from analogy problems but lack robust human-like reasoning. Building on Webb, Holyoak, and Lu (2023), the current study focused on a story-based analogical mapping task and conducted a fine-grained evaluation of LLM reasoning abilities compared to human performance. First, it explored the semantic representation of analogies in LLMs, using sentence embeddings to assess whether they capture the similarity between the source and target texts of an analogy, and the dissimilarity between the source and distractor texts. Second, it investigated the effectiveness of explicitly prompting LLMs to explain analogies. Throughout, we examine whether LLMs exhibit similar performance profiles to those observed in humans by evaluating their reasoning at the level of individual analogies, and not just at the level of overall accuracy (as prior studies have done). Our experiments include evaluating the impact of model size (8B vs. 70B parameters) and performance variation across state-of-the-art model architectures such as GPT-4 and LLaMA3. This work advances our understanding of the analogical reasoning abilities of LLMs and their potential as models of human reasoning.

cs.CL↗