Automated vulnerability repair must often operate with incomplete vulnerability information: developers may lack an accurate vulnerability classification or a provided proof-of-vulnerability (PoV) test, yet still need to produce a repair. Without detailed information, a key challenge is to explore multiple plausible interpretations of the vulnerability before committing to a repair. To address this challenge, we propose ExploreRepair, a vulnerability repair framework that reconciles the vulnerability observations and repair implementations from a team of exploration agents. We first collect these observations and repair implementations from three agents, each tasked with exploring a specific dimension of the vulnerability. Then, a Lesson Aggregator and a Patch Aggregator independently synthesize repairs from these observations and concrete implementations before a final Aggregator reconciles their proposals without benchmark feedback. On PatchEval, ExploreRepair achieves repair success rates of 39.6% and 71.6% with GPT-5.6-Luna and DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash, respectively, exceeding EvoRepair, a state-of-the-art vulnerability repair approach, by 16.0 and 25.4 percentage points. On VulnLoc+, it achieves success rates of 51.4% and 62.9%, respectively, exceeding LoopRepair's variant without PoV tests by 20.0 and 17.1 percentage points.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Trần et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: