Back to #software testing

PLCBench: Can Autonomous LLM Agents Turn PLC Access into Sustained Physical Impact?

Yi-Tian Zhou Jing-Yu Zheng Qi-Liang Jiang Lin-Kang Du Hao-Ming Liu Li-Chao Wu Shi-Yi Zhao Meng-Xiang Liu Ruilong Deng
Aug 2026 · 0 citations · 74 references
Computer Science

TL;DR

PLCBENCH is presented, to the authors' knowledge, the first real-PLC hardware-in-the-loop (HIL) framework for characterizing this cyber-to-physical capability and its boundaries and it combines vendor-native interaction, commercial PLC execution, closed-loop reduced-order process simulation, and independent outcome verification.

Abstract

Industrial control systems (ICSs) rely on programmable logic controllers (PLCs) to connect networked computation with physical control. Tool-using large language model (LLM) agents represent an emerging attack threat: can an autonomous agent convert a network-reachable PLC into sustained adverse physical impact? However, existing evaluations focus on digital tasks or individual stages of PLC testing. In ICSs, evaluations that stop at software exploitation, an accepted write, or tool access may therefore mischaracterize physical risk. We present PLCBENCH, to our knowledge, the first real-PLC hardware-in-the-loop (HIL) framework for characterizing this cyber-to-physical capability and its boundaries. It combines vendor-native interaction, commercial PLC execution, closed-loop reduced-order process simulation, and independent outcome verification. A deterministic evaluator applies fixed rules to runner, communication, PLC-object, and process records to assign six hidden diagnostic flags, distinguishing usable PLC interaction, process-linked manipulation, and sustained physical impact. We instantiate PLCBENCH on four commercial PLCs crossed with four closed-loop workloads. Across five LLM families and 240 real-PLC episodes, 75 episodes (31.3%) sustain their respective physical objectives. Stagewise results show that 98 episodes stop before a valid native read, whereas 62 reach a process-linked write but do not sustain the final objective. Notably, richer process observation is associated with an increase in conditional objective attainment after a process-linked write from 44.2% to 64.0%. These measurements localize failure in configured PLC-process deployments and identify intervention points for future defense evaluation. To support reproducibility, we release the safely disclosable PLCBENCH code and a software-only reproduction pipeline through the accompanying artifact.

View source

Similar papers

#software testing Preprint Aug 2026

Evaluating Inference-Time Defenses Against Package Hallucination in LLM-Generated Code

LLMs are increasingly used for code generation, yet they frequently hallucinate non-existent software packages, creating exploitable entry points into the software supply chain. We make four contributions to this problem. First, we show that prior evaluation methodologies systematically inflate hallucination rates by misclassifying standard-library modules as hallucinations in some languages. For Python, the overestimation reaches 9.4 percentage points. Second, we evaluate seven inference-time defenses for mitigating package hallucinations, including five guided decoding strategies (Greedy, Contrastive, DoLa, Nudging, and Active Layer-Contrastive Decoding), an iterative self-refinement approach (Self-Refine), and a Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG)-based defense.. Across eight models spanning five families and four programming languages (Python, JavaScript, Ruby, Rust), RAG reduces the package hallucination rate (PHR) in 18 of 32 model--language configurations. Third, we introduce Package Utility (PU) to assess whether defenses preserve valid and task-relevant recommendations. Among strategies evaluated, Greedy decoding provides the strongest average mitigation--utility trade-off. Fourth, we stress-test all strategies under adversarial prompts seeded with fabricated package names and find that PHR surges by up to 45 percentage points relative to standard prompts, with Ruby consistently the most vulnerable language (80.9--95.2\%). Under adversarial conditions, RAG and Self-Refine outperform all decoding-only strategies, indicating that robust defense requires either external grounding or iterative self-verification when prompts are actively hostile. Our results recast package hallucination as both a measurement problem and a decoding-time control problem, and they demonstrate that the choice of defense must be matched to the threat model and recommendation utility.

Albérick Euraste Djiré, Iyiola E. Olatunji, Melissa Tessa et al. · 1 citation
#software testing Review Aug 2026

Model-Based Agentic Software Engineering

MAGE explains how externalized knowledge, bounded action, independent evaluation, and retained human authority can compose into a governed engineering environment, and proposes tests of when that environment turns commodity intelligence into durable engineering progress.

James C. Davis, Kelechi G. Kalu, Huiyun Peng et al. · 1 citation
#software testing Review Aug 2026

"A Second Set of Eyes": The Process and Challenges of Software Documentation Review

The work identifies five distinct stages of the documentation review process: self review, technical review, editorial review, play testing, and post-publication feedback, and draws on practitioners with distinct expertise to address quality across content, presentation, and user experience.

Avinash Bhat, Ian Arawjo, Disha Shrivastava et al. · 0 citations

Mixed Reality Glasses Image Translocation for Binocular Diplopia.

This prototype MRG image translocation software was helpful to 69% of patients with binocular diplopia, but limited by large angle strabismus because of the limited instrument field of view.

Edsel B Ing, Kevin Sha, Sarosh Dandoti et al. · 0 citations
#software testing Open access Aug 2026

Multi-Disease Prediction Using Machine Learning: A Web-Based Diagnostic Support System for Diabetes, Heart Disease, and Parkinson\'s Disease

A diagnostic support system based on a unified web platform that classifies patients according to the risks of developing three diseases based on regularly collected clinical or audio data using classical supervised learning algorithms is presented.

Vedamurthy D R, Dr. Anup Ritti, A. Bibi et al. · 0 citations

Related blog posts

MIT News · Artificial Intelligence Aug 17, 2026

Q&A: Rethinking how innovation happens

In his latest book, Professor Eugene Fitzgerald examines the forces that turn breakthroughs into value — and why innovation resists simple formulas.