reviews: 
Comments: This paper proposes WasmTest, a tool to automatically detect bugs in Wasm binaries leveraging the power of LLMs. WasmTest converts the Wasm binaries into functionally equivalent C++ code by LLMs, and then generate testing inputs based on the C++ code by combined efforts from LLMs and type-aware mutations to detect bugs in the Wasm binaries. The authors evaluated WasmTest on 2 benchmarks, the HumanEval-X and MBXP. The evaluation demonstrated that WasmTest can generate C++ code that has high pass rate; the generated test cases can achieve high code coverage and high bug detection rate in Wasm binaries on manually injected bugs.
Strengths: 1. The presentation of the paper is clear and easy to follow.
2. The testing inputs generation of WasmTest can generate test cases that achieve high code coverage.
3. Evaluation on multiple LLMs demonstrate the robustness against the choice of LLMs.
Weaknesses: ## Summarization of major weaknesses

1. The use cases of WasmTest is not clear.
2. The use of "functionally equivalent" C++ code as the testing oracle, i.e., the ground truth of testing outcomes, is dubious. WasmTest cannot guarantee the functional equivalence of the generated C++ code with the original Wasm binaries.
3. Lack of comparison with other binary-lifting tools for Wasm like wasm2c.
4. Lack of comparison with directly generating testing inputs for Wasm binaries.

## Detailed comments

**Significance**:

The use cases of WasmTest is not particularly clear. This paper targets testing the functional bugs of Wasm binaries where the original source code is not available. The paper does not clearly state the intended audiences (or users) of the proposed tool:

1. If WasmTest is intended for attackers, then targeting functional bugs may not be interesting to them, since functional bugs typically have less severe consequences and cannot be easily exploited. Also, attackers may not have access to the natural language descriptions of the Wasm binaries, which are necessary for WasmTest to work.
2. WasmTest is unlikely to be of interests to developers, as they typically have access to the original source code and can directly test the source code.

In either cases, the WasmTest is not particularly useful.

**Originality**:

The idea of using LLMs for both binary lifting and generating test cases are already explored, as mentioned in the related work section of this paper. The novelty of this paper is the combination of them into an end-to-end testing pipeline for Wasm binaries. Yet the usability of the lifting-then-testing approach is not clear. Relying on the pass rates and the majority voting to ensure the functional equivalence of the generated C++ code is not convincing. There can be cases where the generated C++ code passes all example test cases, but still not functionally equivalent to the original Wasm binaries. Without ensuring the correctness of the C++ code, employing it as the testing oracle can lead to false positives.

**Soundness**:

The evaluation of this paper requires significant improvement:

1. The authos do not mention the false positive rate of the testing outcomes. Since the generated C++ code may not be equivalent to the original Wasm binaries, a disagreement between the outcomes from the C++ code and the Wasm binaries may not necessarily indicate a bug in the Wasm binaries, but rather a functional difference.
2. The HumanEval-X and MBXP benchmarks are not complex enough. For real-world projects, the Wasm binaries can be much more complex than a few hundred lines of code. Testing on more complex Wasm binaries is necessary to demonstrate the performance of WasmTest on more realistic scenarios.
3. The evaluation does not compare generating testing inputs directly for Wasm binaries. Without such comparison, the effectiveness of lifting to C++ code is not clear.
4. The evaluation does not compare the performance of WasmTest with other binary-lifting tools for Wasm like wasm2c. Since traditional binary-lifting tools can also lift Wasm binaries to C/C++ code, the use of LLMs in WasmTest may not be necessary.
5. The authors do not evaluate the performance of WasmTest when the natural language descriptions of the Wasm binaries are not available. In cases where only the binaries are available, which can be common in practice, the performance of WasmTest is unknown.

In sum, the evaluation of this paper is not sufficient to demonstrate the effectiveness of WasmTest.
Recommendation: 3
Reviewer confidence: 4
Soundness/correctness: 1
Clarity: 3