Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2609.04219

Large Language Models for Fuzz Testing in Microservices: A Systematic Literature Review

Abstract

Microservice systems (MSS) increasingly rely on heterogeneous APIs whose combinatorial input space and stateful dependencies challenge traditional fuzz testing. Meanwhile, Large Language Models (LLMs) have recently been introduced to enhance fuzzing with semantic reasoning over specifications, inputs, and runtime feedback. This paper presents a systematic literature review (SLR) of LLM-assisted fuzz testing for microservices to synthesise how LLMs are applied, evaluated, and what challenges remain. Following established SLR guidelines, we analyze 20 primary studies published between 2024 and 2026. Results show LLMs are mainly used as semantic input generators in black-box fuzzing, with a growing shift towards agent-based and retrieval-augmented architectures, improving valid input generation and modestly increasing coverage and vulnerability detection. However, evaluation remains heterogeneous, with limited benchmark standardization, scarce cost reporting, and a bias toward single-service experiments, highlighting a gap with real-world multi-service systems. This review provides a taxonomy of LLM roles and integrations, a consolidated view of evaluation practices, and a mapping of open challenges to research directions, supporting the design and deployment of LLM-driven fuzzing in microservices.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Ying Song, Ke Ping, Yuqing Wang, Xiaozhou Li. 2026-07-02. Large Language Models for Fuzz Testing in Microservices: A Systematic Literature Review. https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.04219

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

Discover connections

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

The Impact of GenAI on the Future of Requirements Engineering

Recent advances in artificial intelligence (AI), particularly large language models (LLMs), are transforming how we design and build systems by increasing access to domain knowledge and by providing automation support to software engineering (SE). As implementation becomes less expensive through generalist SE agents, engineering effort shifts away from writing correct code and toward expressing, curating, verifying, and evaluating requirements. In this paper, we survey the state of the art in AI for requirements engineering (RE) research leading up to the transformation, before reviewing advances in LLMs. We survey two subsequent research areas: prompt programming, which treats LLM instructions as a program in SE vernacular, and generalist SE agents, which combine multiple LLM advances to yield semi-autonomous processes that complete SE tasks. Finally, we explore the future of requirements engineering along two axes: matters changing how we interact with requirements through the SE process, and matters changing how requirements are experienced by software developers and stakeholders more broadly, including end-users. This article aims to inform how RE researchers can navigate this transformation in the selection of future research priorities.

cs.SE

From Prompting to Engineering: A Research Agenda for Prompt Engineering in Software Engineering

Prompt engineering is increasingly used across Software Engineering (SE) activities, including requirements analysis, coding, testing, documentation, repository analysis, and planning. Yet prompts and related instruction artifacts are often created and evolved through task-specific and informal practices, with limited support for their systematic evaluation, management, traceability, and governance. To examine how SE can contribute to the maturation of these practices, we organized a structured community discussion at the First International Workshop on Empirical Prompt Engineering for Software Engineering (PROMPT-SE), co-located with EASE 2026. Participants discussed current prompting practices, challenges to their adoption and evaluation, and future directions for integrating prompt engineering into software development. We synthesized these discussions into five areas: prompt artifacts and standardization; evaluation and benchmarking; lifecycle integration; human-AI collaboration and skills; and governance, privacy, and technical debt. Based on these areas, we outline a research agenda to move prompt engineering from predominantly ad hoc interactions toward more systematic, maintainable, evaluable, traceable, and governable SE practices.

cs.SE

Antipatterns in AI-assisted Qualitative Data Analysis: A Catalog of Temptations and Pitfalls for Software Engineering Researchers

AI-assisted qualitative data analysis (QDA) offers unprecedented opportunities to streamline software engineering (SE) research, yet uncritical use risks compromising analytical rigor and flooding the field with accelerated production of low-quality research. While tactical best practices will naturally evolve over time, SE researchers currently lack strategic guidance to identify and mitigate methodological risks when attempting AI-assisted QDA. Based on our decades of qualitative SE research expertise and experience combined with an understanding of the emerging landscape of AI-assisted QDA, this paper presents a catalog of antipatterns in AI-assisted QDA - a set of assumptions and practices that initially appear advantageous but ultimately undermine analytical rigor and validity. The antipatterns are grouped into three categories reflecting escalating impact: Dangerous Drivers, Operational Missteps, and Analytical Failures. As more SE researchers attempt AI-assisted QDA, these antipatterns will help them identify and avoid common temptations and pitfalls, while reviewers can be equipped with the vocabulary and criteria to call out problematic and failed practice. Ultimately, this catalog of antipatterns can serve as a stepping stone in our responsible methodological evolution toward principled and meaningful human-AI collaboration in qualitative research.

cs.SE