Elisa R. Heymann | arXiv Science

arXiv2026

A Study of the Reliability of Agentic AI-Generated Programs

Agentic-AI based software development offers the promise of faster completion of the software, greater programmer efficiency, and more reliable code. The question is how can we verify these claims in an objective way? In this project, we attempted to answer this question based on three practices. First, we applied a typical best-practices agentic AI workflow for software development. Second, our target programs were ten well-known, release-quality human-written Linux utility programs so that we could compare the AI-generated code against a concrete ground truth. Third, we based our measure of reliability on a widely used testing technique, fuzz random testing. For this testing, we used both classic black box, generational testing and more modern coverage guided (gray box, mutational) testing using AFL++. We found that the AI-generated versions of the utility programs were typically as reliable - often more reliable - than the latest human-generated versions of these programs. While the AI-generated versions did have some failures, they were less common than the code from the standard repositories. Interestingly, the AI-generated code was less likely to have failures such as memory errors (such as buffer overflows) but more likely to have hangs such as infinite loops. In addition, we verified that generating robust and reliable software using agentic AI requires careful practice and human supervision. The quality of the code is highly dependent on the prompts and skills used, and how the human directing the process responds. We also demonstrated that using agentic AI workflow for software development (with its prompts and skills) can become a specification of the code that leads to cost-effective sustainability of the software.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2021

The Relevance of Classic Fuzz Testing: Have We Solved This One?

As fuzz testing has passed its 30th anniversary, and in the face of the incredible progress in fuzz testing techniques and tools, the question arises if the classic, basic fuzz technique is still useful and applicable? In that tradition, we have updated the basic fuzz tools and testing scripts and applied them to a large collection of Unix utilities on Linux, FreeBSD, and MacOS. As before, our failure criteria was whether the program crashed or hung. We found that 9 crash or hang out of 74 utilities on Linux, 15 out of 78 utilities on FreeBSD, and 12 out of 76 utilities on MacOS. A total of 24 different utilities failed across the three platforms. We note that these failure rates are somewhat higher than our in previous 1995, 2000, and 2006 studies of the reliability of command line utilities. In the basic fuzz tradition, we debugged each failed utility and categorized the causes the failures. Classic categories of failures, such as pointer and array errors and not checking return codes, were still broadly present in the current results. In addition, we found a couple of new categories of failures appearing. We present examples of these failures to illustrate the programming practices that allowed them to happen. As a side note, we tested the limited number of utilities available in a modern programming language (Rust) and found them to be of no better reliability than the standard ones.

cs.SE↗