Defusing Logic Bombs in Symbolic Execution with LLM-Generated Ghost Code
Dimitrios Stamatios Bouras, Sergey Mechtaev
Abstract
Symbolic execution is a powerful program analysis technique, but its effectiveness is fundamentally limited by solver-hostile program fragments, complex numerical reasoning, and unbounded heap structures. Recent work proposed replacing constraint solvers with large language models (LLMs) to bypass these limitations, but such approaches struggle to analyze real-world codebases, where deep execution paths require globally consistent reasoning across many interacting constraints. We present Gordian, a hybrid symbolic execution framework that uses LLMs selectively to generate lightweight ghost code that aids an SMT solver in handling solver-hostile code fragments, while preserving its precise, global reasoning capability. In particular, we propose three types of ghost code: (1) inversion of difficult code fragments with iterative bidirectional constraint propagation, (2) modeling via solver-friendly surrogates while preserving relevant behavior, and (3) semantic partitioning of unbounded heap spaces. We implemented Gordian on top of the KLEE symbolic execution engine and evaluated it on synthetic “logic bombs” capturing distinct symbolic reasoning challenges, a popular mathematical library FDLibM, and four structured-input programs (libexpat, jq, bc and libyaml). Across benchmarks, Gordian improves coverage by 28.5–115.2% over traditional symbolic execution baseline and by 74.1–189.8% over LLM-based symbolic execution baselines, while reducing LLM token usage by an average of 91–96%. This highlights the practicality and effectiveness of this approach in real-world settings.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext 09306fb5-4895-4652-8e62-c87d8407200eBuilds on13
- Driller: Augmenting Fuzzing Through Selective Symbolic ExecutionNick Stephens, John Grosen, Christopher Salls, Andrew Dutcher et al.NDSS 2016 · 1,021 citations
- QSYM : A Practical Concolic Execution Engine Tailored for Hybrid FuzzingInsu Yun, Sangho Lee, Meng Xu, Yeongjin Jang et al.USENIX Security 2018 · 537 citations
- CodaMosa: Escaping Coverage Plateaus in Test Generation with Pre-trained Large Language ModelsCaroline Lemieux, Jeevana Priya Inala, Shuvendu K. Lahiri, Siddhartha SenICSE 2023 · 221 citations
- Testing the Limits: Unusual Text Inputs Generation for Mobile App Crash Detection with Large Language ModelZhe Liu, Chunyang Chen, Junjie Wang, Mengzhuo Chen et al.ICSE 2024 · 41 citations
- Learning to Explore Paths for Symbolic ExecutionJingxuan He, Gishor Sivanrupan, Petar Tsankov, Martin T. VechevCCS 2021 · 39 citations
Related papers
- Agentic Concolic ExecutionZhengxiong Luo, Huan Zhao, Dylan Wolff, Cristian Cadar et al.S&P 2026 · 17 citations
- Neuro-Symbolic Execution: Augmenting Symbolic Execution with Neural ConstraintsShiqi Shen, Shweta Shinde, Soundarya Ramesh, Abhik Roychoudhury et al.NDSS 2019 · 43 citations
- Concrete Constraint Guided Symbolic ExecutionYue Sun, Guowei Yang, Shichao Lv, Zhi Li et al.ICSE 2024 · 3 citations
- Generator Solving for Symbolic ExecutionSiwei Wei, Yan CaiICSE 2026
- Towards Understanding the Effectiveness of Large Language Models on Directed Test Input GenerationZongze Jiang, Ming Wen, Jialun Cao, Xuanhua Shi et al.ASE 2024 · 8 citations
