mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Guiding Symbolic Execution with Static Analysis and LLMs for Vulnerability Discovery

arXiv 2604.06506 ↗First posted 7 Apr 2026cs.CR cs.SEcited by 1

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Symbolic execution detects vulnerabilities with precision, but applying it to large codebases requires harnesses that set up symbolic state, model dependencies, and specify assertions. Writing these harnesses has traditionally been a manual process requiring expert knowledge, which significantly limits the scalability of the technique. We present Static Analysis Informed and LLM-Orchestrated Symbolic Execution (SAILOR), which automates symbolic execution harness construction by combining static analysis with LLM-based synthesis. SAILOR operates in three phases: (1) static analysis identifies candidate vulnerable locations and generates vulnerability specifications; (2) an LLM uses vulnerability specifications and orchestrates harness synthesis by iteratively refining drivers, stubs, and assertions against compiler and symbolic execution feedback; symbolic execution then detects vulnerabilities using the generated harness, and (3) concrete replay validates the symbolic execution results against the unmodified project source. This design combines the scalability of static analysis, the code reasoning of LLMs, the path precision of symbolic execution, and the ground truth produced by concrete execution. We evaluate SAILOR on 10 open-source C/C++ projects totaling 6.8 M lines of code. SAILOR discovers 379 distinct, previously unknown memory-safety vulnerabilities (421 confirmed crashes). The strongest of five baselines we compare SAILOR to (agentic vulnerability detection using Claude Code with full codebase access and unlimited interaction), finds only 12 vulnerabilities. Each phase of SAILOR is critical: Without static analysis targeting confirmed vulnerabilities drop 12.2X; without iterative LLM synthesis zero vulnerabilities are confirmed; and without symbolic execution no approach can detect more than 12 vulnerabilities.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 7 Apr 2026.

Builds on

No reference list yet.

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.

1 paper.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2025The Hitchhiker's Guide to Program Analysis, Part II: Deep Thoughts by LLMs
  2. 2025Trust Me, I Know This Function: Hijacking LLM Static Analysis using Bias
  3. 2026OpenAnt: LLM-Powered Vulnerability Discovery Through Code Decomposition, Adversarial Verification, and Dynamic Testing
  4. 2026Antaeus: Hunting Repository-Level Logic Vulnerabilities via Context-Grounded LLM Reasoning ↗
  5. 2026Tool-Guided Retrieval-Augmented Repair for Securing LLM-Generated C Code
  6. 2026Bridging Code Property Graphs and Language Models for Program Analysis ↗
  7. 2025Integrating Symbolic Execution with LLMs for Automated Generation of Program Specifications
  8. 2025VulInstruct: Teaching LLMs Root-Cause Reasoning for Vulnerability Detection via Security Specifications