Heap Fuzzing:Automatic Garbage Collection Testing with Expert-Guided Random Events
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Producing robust memory manager implementations is a challenging task. Defects in garbage collection algorithms produce subtle effects that are revealed later in program execution as memory corruptions. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that garbage collection algorithms deal with low-level implementation details to be efficient. Finding, reproducing, and debugging such bugs is complex and time-consuming. In this article, we propose to fuzz heaps by generating large sequences of random heap events guided by virtual machine experts. Randomly generated events exercise the garbage collection algorithm with the objective of crashing the virtual machine and finding bugs. Once a bug is found, we use a test case reduction algorithm to find the smaller subset of events that reproduces the issue. We implemented our approach on top of the virtual machine simulator of the Pharo Virtual Machine, to test its sequential stopthe-world generational scavenger. Experts guided our fuzzing toward the ephemeron finalization mechanism, corner allocation cases, and the heap compaction algorithm. Our prototype found 6 bugs: 3 in Pharo's ephemeron implementation which is not yet in production, 2 bugs in the default compactor which has been in production for 8 years, and 1 bug in the VM simulator used daily by VM developers. We show how such test cases were automatically reduced to trivial sequences that were easy to debug.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it