Software testing and verification are critical for ensuring the reliability and security of modern software systems. Traditionally, formal verification techniques, such as model checking and theorem proving, have provided rigorous frameworks for detecting bugs and vulnerabilities. However, these methods often face scalability challenges when applied to complex, real-world programs. Recently, the advent of Large Language Models (LLMs) has introduced a new paradigm for software analysis, leveraging their ability to understand insecure coding practices. Although LLMs demonstrate promising capabilities in tasks such as bug prediction and invariant generation, they lack the formal guarantees of classical methods. This paper presents a comprehensive study of state-of-the-art software testing and verification, focusing on three key approaches: classical formal methods, LLM-based analysis, and emerging hybrid techniques, which combine their strengths. We explore each approach's strengths, limitations, and practical applications, highlighting the potential of hybrid systems to address the weaknesses of standalone methods. We analyze whether integrating formal rigor with LLM-driven insights can enhance the effectiveness and scalability of software verification, exploring their viability as a pathway toward more robust and adaptive testing frameworks.

Identifying vulnerabilities in source code is crucial, especially in critical software components. Existing methods such as static analysis, dynamic analysis, formal verification, and recently Large Language Models are widely used to detect security flaws. This paper introduces CASTLE (CWE Automated Security Testing and Low-Level Evaluation), a benchmarking framework for evaluating the vulnerability detection capabilities of different methods. We assess 13 static analysis tools, 10 LLMs, and 2 formal verification tools using a hand-crafted dataset of 250 micro-benchmark programs covering 25 common CWEs. We propose the CASTLE Score, a novel evaluation metric to ensure fair comparison. Our results reveal key differences: ESBMC (a formal verification tool) minimizes false positives but struggles with vulnerabilities beyond model checking, such as weak cryptography or SQL injection. Static analyzers suffer from high false positives, increasing manual validation efforts for developers. LLMs perform exceptionally well in the CASTLE dataset when identifying vulnerabilities in small code snippets. However, their accuracy declines, and hallucinations increase as the code size grows. These results suggest that LLMs could play a pivotal role in future security solutions, particularly within code completion frameworks, where they can provide real-time guidance to prevent vulnerabilities. The dataset is accessible at https://github.com/CASTLE-Benchmark.

Neural network verification is a new and rapidly developing field of research. So far, the main priority has been establishing efficient verification algorithms and tools, while proper support from the programming language perspective has been considered secondary or unimportant. Yet, there is mounting evidence that insights from the programming language community may make a difference in the future development of this domain. In this paper, we formulate neural network verification challenges as programming language challenges and suggest possible future solutions.

As machine intelligence evolves, the need to test and compare the problem-solving abilities of different AI models grows. However, current benchmarks are often simplistic, allowing models to perform uniformly well and making it difficult to distinguish their capabilities. Additionally, benchmarks typically rely on static question-answer pairs that the models might memorize or guess. To address these limitations, we introduce Dynamic Intelligence Assessment (DIA), a novel methodology for testing AI models using dynamic question templates and improved metrics across multiple disciplines such as mathematics, cryptography, cybersecurity, and computer science. The accompanying dataset, DIA-Bench, contains a diverse collection of challenge templates with mutable parameters presented in various formats, including text, PDFs, compiled binaries, visual puzzles, and CTF-style cybersecurity challenges. Our framework introduces four new metrics to assess a model's reliability and confidence across multiple attempts. These metrics revealed that even simple questions are frequently answered incorrectly when posed in varying forms, highlighting significant gaps in models' reliability. Notably, API models like GPT-4o often overestimated their mathematical capabilities, while ChatGPT-4o demonstrated better performance due to effective tool usage. In self-assessment, OpenAI's o1-mini proved to have the best judgement on what tasks it should attempt to solve. We evaluated 25 state-of-the-art LLMs using DIA-Bench, showing that current models struggle with complex tasks and often display unexpectedly low confidence, even with simpler questions. The DIA framework sets a new standard for assessing not only problem-solving but also a model's adaptive intelligence and ability to assess its limitations. The dataset is publicly available on the project's page: https://github.com/DIA-Bench.

Training large language models (LLMs) requires a substantial investment of time and money. To get a good return on investment, the developers spend considerable effort ensuring that the model never produces harmful and offensive outputs. However, bad-faith actors may still try to slander the reputation of an LLM by publicly reporting a forged output. In this paper, we show that defending against such slander attacks requires reconstructing the input of the forged output or proving that it does not exist. To do so, we propose and evaluate a search based approach for targeted adversarial attacks for LLMs. Our experiments show that we are rarely able to reconstruct the exact input of an arbitrary output, thus demonstrating that LLMs are still vulnerable to slander attacks.

In heterogeneous scenarios where the data distribution amongst the Federated Learning (FL) participants is Non-Independent and Identically distributed (Non-IID), FL suffers from the well known problem of data heterogeneity. This leads the performance of FL to be significantly degraded, as the global model tends to struggle to converge. To solve this problem, we propose Differentially Private Synthetic Data Aided Federated Learning Using Foundation Models (DPSDA-FL), a novel data augmentation strategy that aids in homogenizing the local data present on the clients' side. DPSDA-FL improves the training of the local models by leveraging differentially private synthetic data generated from foundation models. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach by evaluating it on the benchmark image dataset: CIFAR-10. Our experimental results have shown that DPSDA-FL can improve class recall and classification accuracy of the global model by up to 26% and 9%, respectively, in FL with Non-IID issues.

In contrast to classic software development, neural networks are crafted via a long process of trial and error that terminates when their predictive performance reaches a satisfactory level [4, 36]. The iterative and performance-driven nature of this process leaves neural networks vulnerable on many fronts [23]: poor performance on out-of-distribution [21] and adversarial inputs [32], misspecification of the neural architecture and training process [24], invocation of broken and deprecated libraries [30], outright software bugs [22]. Unfortunately, many of these vulnerabilities are not easy to catch early in the development process and may remain hidden until after deployment. Although efforts to debug the actual implementation of neural networks exist, they are based on automatic testing and thus cannot prove correctness for all inputs [33, 22, 18]. This lack of guarantees is especially concerning for safety-critical systems since common software vulnerabilities [11] (e.g., arithmetic overflows, invalid memory accesses) can make the networks produce wrong results, expose sensitive data or corrupt the system they are executed on. In this report, we tackle the challenge of producing bug-free implementations of neural networks in the following way. First, we employ software verifiers to ensure full coverage of the state space. In the past, it has been claimed that software verifiers struggle to cope with neural network code due to its size, complexity and the presence of numerous calls to the standard mathematical library [26].

This study provides a comparative analysis of state-of-the-art large language models (LLMs), analyzing how likely they generate vulnerabilities when writing simple C programs using a neutral zero-shot prompt. We address a significant gap in the literature concerning the security properties of code produced by these models without specific directives. N. Tihanyi et al. introduced the FormAI dataset at PROMISE '23, containing 112,000 GPT-3.5-generated C programs, with over 51.24% identified as vulnerable. We expand that work by introducing the FormAI-v2 dataset comprising 265,000 compilable C programs generated using various LLMs, including robust models such as Google's GEMINI-pro, OpenAI's GPT-4, and TII's 180 billion-parameter Falcon, to Meta's specialized 13 billion-parameter CodeLLama2 and various other compact models. Each program in the dataset is labelled based on the vulnerabilities detected in its source code through formal verification using the Efficient SMT-based Context-Bounded Model Checker (ESBMC). This technique eliminates false positives by delivering a counterexample and ensures the exclusion of false negatives by completing the verification process. Our study reveals that at least 63.47% of the generated programs are vulnerable. The differences between the models are minor, as they all display similar coding errors with slight variations. Our research highlights that while LLMs offer promising capabilities for code generation, deploying their output in a production environment requires risk assessment and validation.

Prompting has become one of the main approaches to leverage emergent capabilities of Large Language Models [Brown et al. NeurIPS 2020, Wei et al. TMLR 2022, Wei et al. NeurIPS 2022]. During the last year, researchers and practitioners have been playing with prompts to see how to make the most of LLMs. By homogeneously dissecting 80 papers, we investigate in deep how software testing and verification research communities have been abstractly architecting their LLM-enabled solutions. More precisely, first, we want to validate whether downstream tasks are an adequate concept to convey the blueprint of prompt-based solutions. We also aim at identifying number and nature of such tasks in solutions. For such goal, we develop a novel downstream task taxonomy that enables pinpointing some engineering patterns in a rather varied spectrum of Software Engineering problems that encompasses testing, fuzzing, debugging, vulnerability detection, static analysis and program verification approaches.

We present QNNRepair, the first method in the literature for repairing quantized neural networks (QNNs). QNNRepair aims to improve the accuracy of a neural network model after quantization. It accepts the full-precision and weight-quantized neural networks and a repair dataset of passing and failing tests. At first, QNNRepair applies a software fault localization method to identify the neurons that cause performance degradation during neural network quantization. Then, it formulates the repair problem into a linear programming problem of solving neuron weights parameters, which corrects the QNN's performance on failing tests while not compromising its performance on passing tests. We evaluate QNNRepair with widely used neural network architectures such as MobileNetV2, ResNet, and VGGNet on popular datasets, including high-resolution images. We also compare QNNRepair with the state-of-the-art data-free quantization method SQuant. According to the experiment results, we conclude that QNNRepair is effective in improving the quantized model's performance in most cases. Its repaired models have 24% higher accuracy than SQuant's in the independent validation set, especially for the ImageNet dataset.