Papers › Prompt Fuzzing for Fuzz Driver Generation

Prompt Fuzzing for Fuzz Driver Generation

29 Dec 2023arXiv:2312.17677links table onlyarchive 2025-07-28

Yunlong Lyu, Yuxuan Xie, Peng Chen, Hao Chen

The archive published only this paper's code-link row. Authors, date and abstract are from arXiv's metadata (CC0), read from the Kaggle arXiv metadata snapshot of 2026-09-12 where its title matched the archive's; the title is the archive's.

Crafting high-quality fuzz drivers not only is time-consuming but also requires a deep understanding of the library. However, the state-of-the-art automatic fuzz driver generation techniques fall short of expectations. While fuzz drivers derived from consumer code can reach deep states, they have limited coverage. Conversely, interpretative fuzzing can explore most API calls but requires numerous attempts within a large search space. We propose PromptFuzz, a coverage-guided fuzzer for prompt fuzzing that iteratively generates fuzz drivers to explore undiscovered library code. To explore API usage in fuzz drivers during prompt fuzzing, we propose several key techniques: instructive program generation, erroneous program validation, coverage-guided prompt mutation, and constrained fuzzer scheduling. We implemented PromptFuzz and evaluated it on 14 real-world libraries. Compared with OSS-Fuzz and Hopper (the state-of-the-art fuzz driver generation tool), fuzz drivers generated by PromptFuzz achieved 1.61 and 1.63 times higher branch coverage than those by OSS-Fuzz and Hopper, respectively. Moreover, the fuzz drivers generated by PromptFuzz detected 33 genuine, new bugs out of a total of 49 crashes, out of which 30 bugs have been confirmed by their respective communities.

Code

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

10 samples harvested; 5 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 5 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.

Licence: 10 of the 10 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.

Harvested from promptfuzz/promptfuzz. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.

Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.

Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections