FalseCrashReducer: Mitigating False Positive Crashes in OSS-Fuzz-Gen Using Agentic AI
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Software engineering coding agents
Abstract (arXiv)
Fuzz testing has become a cornerstone technique for identifying software bugs and security vulnerabilities, with broad adoption in both industry and open-source communities. Directly fuzzing a function requires fuzz drivers, which translate random fuzzer inputs into valid arguments for the target function. Given the cost and expertise required to manually develop fuzz drivers, methods exist that leverage program analysis and Large Language Models to automatically generate these drivers. However, the generated fuzz drivers frequently lead to false positive crashes, especially in functions highly structured input and complex state requirements. This problem is especially crucial in industry-scale fuzz driver generation efforts like OSS-Fuzz-en, as reporting false positive crashes to maintainers impede trust in both the system and the team. This paper presents two AI-driven strategies to reduce false positives in OSS-Fuzz-Gen, a multi-agent system for automated fuzz driver generation. First, constraint-based fuzz driver generation proactively enforces constraints on a function's inputs and state to guide driver creation. Second, context-based crash validation reactively analyzes function callers to determine whether reported crashes are feasible from program entry points. Using 1,500 benchmark functions from OSS-Fuzz, we show that these strategies reduce spurious crashes by up to 8%, cut reported crashes by more than half, and demonstrate that frontier LLMs can serve as reliable program analysis agents. Our results highlight the promise and challenges of integrating AI into large-scale fuzzing pipelines.
Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Software engineering coding agents, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 22 of its 69 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 2 Oct 2025.
Builds on
22 of 69 references.
Closest ancestors · 2
Same direction, newest first
- 2025Agent That Debugs: Dynamic State-Guided Vulnerability Repair10 Apr
- 2024CodeAgent: Enhancing Code Generation with Tool-Integrated Agent Systems for Real-World Repo-level Coding Challenges14 Jan
Other references · 20
- 2023Can LLMs Express Their Uncertainty? An Empirical Evaluation of Confidence Elicitation in LLMscited by 974
- 2022Decomposed Prompting: A Modular Approach for Solving Complex Taskscited by 558
- 2023ADaPT: As-Needed Decomposition and Planning with Language Modelscited by 177
- 2024AgentScope: A Flexible yet Robust Multi-Agent Platformcited by 121
- 2024CodeRAG-Bench: Can Retrieval Augment Code Generation?cited by 91
- 2018The Art, Science, and Engineering of Fuzzing: A Surveycited by 62
- 2024Cycles of Thought: Measuring LLM Confidence through Stable Explanationscited by 29
- 2023Prompt Fuzzing for Fuzz Driver Generationcited by 27
- 2023How Effective Are They? Exploring Large Language Model Based Fuzz Driver Generationcited by 21
- 2024On Mitigating Code LLM Hallucinations with API Documentationcited by 21
- 2025The Confidence Paradox: Can LLM Know When It's Wrongcited by 11
- 2024Harnessing Large Language Models for Seed Generation in Greybox Fuzzingcited by 8
8 more
- 2021An Empirical Study of OSS-Fuzz Bugscited by 7
- 2024Contextual API Completion for Unseen Repositories Using LLMscited by 6
- 2024LLM Confidence Evaluation Measures in Zero-Shot CSS Classificationcited by 6
- 2025Incoherence as Oracle-less Measure of Error in LLM-Based Code Generationcited by 6
- 2024Fixing Security Vulnerabilities with AI in OSS-Fuzzcited by 5
- 2025Representation Consistency for Accurate and Coherent LLM Answer Aggregationcited by 5
- 2025An Empirical Study of Fuzz Harness Degradationcited by 2
- 2025Do Unit Proofs Work? An Empirical Study of Compositional Bounded Model Checking for Memory Safety Verificationcited by 1
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.
2 papers.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2025LibLMFuzz: LLM-Augmented Fuzz Target Generation for Black-box Libraries
- 2026Agentic Fuzzing: Opportunities and Challenges
- 2025Locus: Agentic Predicate Synthesis for Directed Fuzzing
- 2025Orion: Fuzzing Workflow Automation
- 2026SeedSmith: LLM-Driven Seed Synthesis for Directed Fuzzing ↗
- 2025kAgent: An execution-guided crash resolution agent for the Linux kernel
- 2024FuzzTheREST: An Intelligent Automated Black-box RESTful API Fuzzer
- 2026FuzzAgent: Multi-Agent System for Evolutionary Library Fuzzing