Papers › WhiteFox: White-Box Compiler Fuzzing Empowered by Large Language Models
WhiteFox: White-Box Compiler Fuzzing Empowered by Large Language Models
Chenyuan Yang, Yinlin Deng, Runyu Lu, Jiayi Yao, Jiawei Liu, Reyhaneh Jabbarvand, Lingming Zhang
Compiler correctness is crucial, as miscompilation can falsify program behaviors, leading to serious consequences. Fuzzing has been studied to uncover compiler defects. However, compiler fuzzing remains challenging: Existing arts focus on black- and grey-box fuzzing, which generates tests without sufficient understanding of internal compiler behaviors. Meanwhile, traditional white-box techniques, like symbolic execution, are computationally inapplicable to the giant codebase of compilers. Recent advances demonstrate that Large Language Models (LLMs) excel in code generation/understanding tasks. Nonetheless, guiding LLMs with compiler source-code information remains a missing piece of research in compiler testing. To this end, we propose WhiteFox, the first white-box compiler fuzzer using LLMs with source-code information to test compiler optimization, with a spotlight on detecting deep logic bugs in the deep learning (DL) compilers. WhiteFox adopts a multi-agent framework: an LLM-based analysis agent examines the low-level optimization source code and produces requirements on the high-level test programs that can trigger the optimization; an LLM-based generation agent produces test programs based on the summarized requirements. Additionally, optimization-triggering tests are used as feedback to enhance the generation on the fly. Our evaluation on the three most popular DL compilers (i.e., PyTorch Inductor, TensorFlow-XLA, and TensorFlow Lite) shows WhiteFox can generate high-quality test programs to exercise deep optimizations, practicing up to 8X more than state-of-the-art fuzzers. WhiteFox has found 101 bugs for the DL compilers, with 92 confirmed as previously unknown and 70 fixed. WhiteFox has been acknowledged by the PyTorch team and is being incorporated into its development workflow. Beyond DL compilers, WhiteFox can also be adapted for compilers in different domains.
In Syntology Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.
For agents, Syntology's MCP tool lists every function and class Syntology harvested from this paper and whether it ran (how to connect): get_harvested_code_for_paper(arxiv_id="2310.15991")
Code
Syntology Ran 1 of 1 code samples harvested from 1 repository linked to this paper; 0 have no recorded run. Of those that ran: 1 ran · our draft was wrong.
By repository: official repository: 1 sample from 1 repository, 1 ran. The run record, sample by sample. “Ran” means executed on a synthesized input, not that the code is correct or reproduces the paper.
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
1 sample harvested; 1 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 0 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: 0 of the 1 sample 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 ise-uiuc/whitefox. “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.
6e0e57e1fc059b8d · report
Tasks
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.
Methods
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