mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Agentic Planning for Symbolic Execution

arXiv 2608.06397 ↗First posted 31 Jul 2026cs.PL cs.AI cs.SEcited by 0

On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Software engineering coding agents

Abstract (arXiv)

Symbolic execution seeks to explore feasible program paths, yet a practical run may exhaust its resources while much program behaviour remains unreached. We investigate a complementary way of extending its practical reach by reasoning about how the same tool is utilised from one bounded run to the next, while leaving ordinary state exploration to the underlying tool. We present Agolic, an agentic planning system that uses evidence from earlier runs to choose and configure later bounded symbolic execution (BSE) runs, which the underlying symbolic execution tool then carries out. The planning intelligence, available evidence and execution modes can be adapted to the symbolic execution tool and analysis objective. We evaluate one adaptation for branch-coverage exploration, in which an LLM-based agent reasons over source code, replayed coverage and earlier targeting attempts. We evaluate Agolic on several C and C++ programs. On every program, it extends the branch coverage obtained by continuous symbolic execution and covers more than 3× as many branches on average. It also covers more branches than each individual corpus from coverage-guided fuzzing and compiler-based concolic execution in our evaluation and reaches branches absent from all comparison corpora combined on six of the seven programs. Taken together, these results point to considerable untapped potential in existing symbolic execution tools, some of which may be realised by reasoning about how their capabilities are used across runs while leaving state selection during ordinary symbolic exploration to the underlying tool.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Software engineering coding agents, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 9 of its 41 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 31 Jul 2026.

Builds on

9 of 41 references.

References · 9

  1. 2023Fuzz4All: Universal Fuzzing with Large Language Modelscited by 88
  2. 2016A Survey of Symbolic Execution Techniquescited by 36
  3. 2018NEUZZ: Efficient Fuzzing with Neural Program Smoothingcited by 19
  4. 2025Cottontail: Large Language Model-Driven Concolic Execution for Highly Structured Test Input Generationcited by 6
  5. 2018Badger: Complexity Analysis with Fuzzing and Symbolic Executioncited by 4
  6. 2017Improving Function Coverage with Munch: A Hybrid Fuzzing and Directed Symbolic Execution Approachcited by 2
  7. 2019Enhancing Dynamic Symbolic Execution by Automatically Learning Search Heuristicscited by 1
  8. 2026Guiding Symbolic Execution with Static Analysis and LLMs for Vulnerability Discoverycited by 1
  9. 2026ConcoLixir: Reactive LLM Discovery Oracles for Python Concolic Testingcited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026LongCLI-Bench: A Preliminary Benchmark and Study for Long-horizon Agentic Programming in Command-Line Interfaces
  2. 2026Agentic Fuzzing: Opportunities and Challenges
  3. 2026AgentExecutor: Partial Code Execution via Agentic Context Generation
  4. 2026LLM-as-Code: Agentic Programming for Agent Harness
  5. 2025Locus: Agentic Predicate Synthesis for Directed Fuzzing
  6. 2026Compile, Then Page: Executable SOP Programs and a Capability-Gated Runtime for Procedural LLM Agents
  7. 2026Credo: Reusable Declarative Primitives for Agentic Workflows
  8. 2026Codoku: Renewable Program-Reasoning Challenges for Frontier Coding Agents