mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

PatchIsland: Orchestration of LLM Agents for Continuous Vulnerability Repair

arXiv 2601.17471 ↗First posted 24 Jan 2026cs.CRcited by 2

On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Software engineering coding agents

Abstract (arXiv)

Continuous fuzzing platforms such as OSS-Fuzz uncover large numbers of vulnerabilities, yet the subsequent repair process remains largely manual. Unfortunately, existing Automated Vulnerability Repair (AVR) techniques -- including recent LLM-based systems -- are not directly applicable to continuous fuzzing. This is because these systems are designed and evaluated on a static, single-run benchmark setting, making them ill-suited for the diverse, noisy, and failure-prone environments in continuous fuzzing. To address these issues, we introduce PatchIsland, a system for Continuous Vulnerability Repair (CVR) that tightly integrates with continuous fuzzing pipelines. PatchIsland employs an ensemble of diverse LLM agents. By leveraging multiple LLM agents, PatchIsland can cover a wider range of settings (e.g., different projects, bug types, and programming languages) and also improve operational robustness. In addition, PatchIsland utilizes a two-phase patch-based deduplication to mitigate duplicate crashes and patches, which can be problematic in continuous fuzzing. In our internal evaluation, PatchIsland repaired 84 of 92 vulnerabilities, demonstrating strong repair capability. In the official AIxCC competition, the system operated with no human intervention in a fully autonomous environment and successfully patched 31 out of 43 vulnerabilities, achieving a repair rate of 72.1%.

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 7 of its 46 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 24 Jan 2026.

Builds on

7 of 46 references.

Closest ancestors · 1

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2024RepairAgent: An Autonomous, LLM-Based Agent for Program Repair25 Mar

Other references · 6

  1. 2021Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Codecited by 8,320
  2. 2024APPATCH: Automated Adaptive Prompting Large Language Models for Real-World Software Vulnerability Patchingcited by 19
  3. 2025SoK: Automated Vulnerability Repair: Methods, Tools, and Assessmentscited by 12
  4. 2025Enhancing LLM Code Generation with Ensembles: A Similarity-Based Selection Approachcited by 10
  5. 2024Fixing Security Vulnerabilities with AI in OSS-Fuzzcited by 5
  6. 2020E-APR: Mapping the Effectiveness of Automated Program Repaircited by 3

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.

2 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026FuzzingBrain V2: A Multi-Agent LLM System for Automated Vulnerability Discovery and Reproduction
  2. 2026RAVEN: Agentic RAG for Automated Vulnerability Repair
  3. 2026SyzHarness: Patch-Based Kernel Bug Reproduction with LLM-Synthesized Fuzzing Harnesses
  4. 2026ContraFix: Skill-Enhanced Contrastive Runtime Analysis for Vulnerability Repair
  5. 2026Root-Cause-Driven Automated Vulnerability Repair ↗
  6. 2026Multi-Agent End-to-End Vulnerability Management for Mitigating Recurring Vulnerabilities
  7. 2024A Case Study of LLM for Automated Vulnerability Repair: Assessing Impact of Reasoning and Patch Validation Feedback
  8. 2026VulnResolver: A Hybrid Agent Framework for LLM-Based Automated Vulnerability Issue Resolution