mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

CVE2AP: Automated Generation of PDDL-Encoded Attack Paths via Large Language Models

arXiv 2610.03383 ↗First posted 2 Oct 2026cs.AIcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Attack Path (AP) modeling is fundamental to cybersecurity analysis, where the Planning Domain Definition Language (PDDL) has been widely adopted to encode APs into formal and machine-verifiable representations for automated reasoning about vulnerability exploitation, attack progression, and their potential impacts. However, existing AP modeling approaches largely rely on expert-driven manual construction, limiting their scalability and ability to keep pace with rapidly evolving cyber threats. Large language models (LLMs) are promising candidates, as their extensive pre-trained knowledge and reasoning capabilities enable them to interpret and transform threat intelligence into formal representations. In this paper, we propose CVE2AP, an LLM-based approach for automatically generating PDDL-encoded attack paths from natural language CVE (Common Vulnerability Exposure) descriptions. CVE2AP leverages structured prompting and incorporates an error-feedback mechanism that iteratively refines the generated paths using planner-reported syntactic and solvability errors. We conduct a systematic empirical evaluation across multiple LLMs and generation configurations, assessing generation quality across syntactic, solvability and semantic dimensions, together with token consumption and generation time. The results demonstrate that CVE2AP effectively generates high-quality PDDL-encoded attack paths, achieving up to 86.9% syntax correctness, 78.6% solvability, and 93.1% semantic correctness under LLM-as-expert evaluation, while textttGPT-5.5 offers the best quality-cost trade-off and error feedback yields the most consistent quality improvement.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 7 of its 23 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 2 Oct 2026.

Builds on

7 of 23 references.

References · 7

  1. 2024A Survey on LLM-as-a-Judgecited by 1,423
  2. 2025Qwen3 Embedding: Advancing Text Embedding and Reranking Through Foundation Modelscited by 1,261
  3. 2023Leveraging Pre-trained Large Language Models to Construct and Utilize World Models for Model-based Task Planningcited by 207
  4. 2024On the Limit of Language Models as Planning Formalizerscited by 18
  5. 2024Planning in the Dark: LLM-Symbolic Planning Pipeline without Expertscited by 16
  6. 2024Generating consistent PDDL domains with Large Language Modelscited by 15
  7. 2013Attack Planning in the Real Worldcited by 8

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2025Automated Vulnerability Validation and Verification: A Large Language Model Approach
  2. 2025A Systematic Study on Generating Web Vulnerability Proof-of-Concepts Using Large Language Models
  3. 2025From CVE Entries to Verifiable Exploits: An Automated Multi-Agent Framework for Reproducing CVEs
  4. 2025VulInstruct: Teaching LLMs Root-Cause Reasoning for Vulnerability Detection via Security Specifications
  5. 2026Beware EviLLM: Enabling Vulnerability Injection via Large Language Models
  6. 2025LLMpatronous: Harnessing the Power of LLMs For Vulnerability Detection
  7. 2025Guided Reasoning in LLM-Driven Penetration Testing Using Structured Attack Trees
  8. 2026Routing Ceilings Are Domain-Independent: Structural Prior Injection in Code Security Vulnerability Detection