Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

DiffSpec: Differential Testing with LLMs using Natural Language Specifications and Code Artifacts

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2410.04249 v3 pith:NX3EYG7R submitted 2024-10-05 cs.SE

DiffSpec: Differential Testing with LLMs using Natural Language Specifications and Code Artifacts

classification cs.SE
keywords languagetestsbugsdiffspecllmsnaturalartifactscode
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

Differential testing can be an effective way to find bugs in software systems with multiple implementations that conform to the same specification, like compilers, network protocol parsers, or language runtimes. Specifications for such systems are often standardized in natural language documents, like Instruction Set Architecture (ISA) specifications or IETF RFC's. Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated potential in both generating tests and handling large volumes of natural language text, making them well-suited for analyzing artifacts like specification documents, bug reports, and code implementations. In this work, we leverage natural language and code artifacts to guide LLMs to generate targeted tests that highlight meaningful behavioral differences between implementations, including those corresponding to bugs. We introduce DiffSpec, a framework for generating differential tests with LLMs using prompt chaining. We demonstrate DiffSpec's efficacy on two different (extensively tested) systems, eBPF runtimes and Wasm validators. Using DiffSpec, we generated 1901 differentiating tests, uncovering at least four distinct and confirmed bugs in eBPF, including a kernel memory leak, inconsistent behavior in jump instructions, undefined behavior when using the stack pointer, and tests with infinite loops that hang the verifier in ebpf-for-windows. We also found 299 differentiating tests in Wasm validators pointing to two confirmed and fixed bugs.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Agentic Method for Deterministic Validation of Legacy Code Migration

    cs.SE 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    Locksmith Loop raises COBOL–Java migration branch coverage past input-search plateaus via parity-gated harness mutations, reaching ~97–100% on two open programs and 91.9% on a 4k-line production-like batch program.