Daily Papers

AI agents have recently demonstrated strong performance in automated vulnerability patching. However, existing evaluations often validate a patch only by testing whether the provided Proof-of-Concept (PoC) input still triggers a crash. This leaves two key threats to validity: agents may reproduce memorized historical developer patches, or they may generate surface-level fixes that only suppress the reported crash. We study these concerns for C/C++ vulnerability patching. We introduce a patch similarity metric to detect memorized patches. On average, 25% of the agent patches exhibit substantial similarity to historical developer patches, indicating that patch memorization is a real threat to the validity of vulnerability patching evaluations. Meanwhile, agents also frequently exploit benchmark structures to pass patch validation by patching on the crash stack trace to suppress the crash, rather than localizing and fixing the root cause of the vulnerabilities. To handle these issues, we propose PatchBench, a new benchmark for evaluating AI agents on realistic vulnerability patching tasks. PatchBench selects vulnerabilities whose ground-truth fixes lie outside the crash stack and uses vulnerability transplant and code mutations to migrate historical vulnerabilities into new repository contexts, reducing the risks of surface-level fixes and patch memorization. We develop new patch validation methods that thoroughly evaluate both security and semantic correctness of agent patches. Across 11 state-of-the-art agents, including the top three AIxCC agents, the original PoC-only validation inflates the patching task solve rate of agents by 1.83times on average. Our results reveal key limitations of current patching agents and point to future research directions for more reliable vulnerability repair.

An LLM safety patch can pass a benchmark while still being a poor repair. This risk is especially acute for jailbreak repairs, where the goal is to correct a specific unsafe behaviour without changing unrelated behaviours. A patch may block exact evaluation prompts yet fail on close harmful variants, or suppress harmful behaviour by over-refusing benign prompts that share its wording or structure. Existing protocols primarily test whether models can be broken, while aggregate metrics (attack success, refusal rates, global capability) cannot distinguish selective repairs from broader local suppression. To address this gap, we introduce PatchBench, a benchmark of empirically observed model-specific jailbreak failures inducing actionable harmful answers. Starting from 27,870 prompts from 37 public datasets, we curate 15,314 English prompts and query 8 open-source instruction-tuned models. Combining WildGuard filtering, pairwise Elo ranking, and manual verification, we retain a curated bank of 400 high-confidence jailbreak failures. We further introduce PatchBench-Local, an evaluation protocol testing whether a patch is behaviourally precise. For each harmful source prompt, PatchBench-Local generates three families of local neighbours: harmful variants preserving malicious intent, benign prompts with matched structure, and benign prompts reusing key harmful terms. It evaluates harmful-neighbour correction and benign-neighbour preservation, distinguishing selective repair from broader local suppression. Evaluating four activation steering methods with PatchBench-Local and MMLU shows that global capability can remain nearly unchanged while local benign regressions are severe, confirming aggregate metrics miss important collateral damage. PatchBench-Local provides a more precise basis for developing and comparing jailbreak repair methods.