arXiv:2607. 19653v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language model (LLM) agents now perform well on correctness-oriented repository-level tasks, including SWE-Bench issue resolution and feature implementation in real codebases.
By Ryan Deng, Yuanzhe Liu, Bastian Lipka, Yao Ma, Xuhao Chen, Tim Kaler, Jatin Ganhotra
arXiv:2607. 20499v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large Language Models generate plausible backend code, but a single-pass paradigm provides no guarantee of correctness or runtime reliability.
By Sai Deekshith Lekkala, Jothi Prabha Appadurai, Rohith Reddy Bellibatlu, Manpreet Singh
arXiv:2605. 17450v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: As software systems grow increasingly complex, automated vulnerability repair (AVR) remains difficult because the materials available to a repair system are usually failure artifacts rather than repair guidance.
By Simiao Liu, Fang Liu, Peiding Wang, Taichuan Li, Yinghao Zhu, Xiaoli Lian, Li Zhang
The paper investigates how altering the harness—specifically the way a coding agent manages context and tool outputs—affects performance when the underlying model and task remain unchanged. Two harness configurations were compared on three coding benchmarks: a control that preserves the full conversation in order, and a treatment that mechanically shortens older tool results to keep the context tight. Across all benchmarks, the treatment increased the mean per‑task fail‑to‑pass fraction and, in some cases, the number of complete solutions, demonstrating that the harness itself can significantly influence a frozen model’s effectiveness.
By Sydney Lewis
arXiv:2608.31076v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Autonomous scientific research agents are increasingly applied to end-to-end scientific workflows, including literature review, data analysis, experi...
By Xuehai Wang, Haowei Qin, Tongxin Liu, Junkai Li, Buqiang Xu, Jintian Zhang, Yijun Chen, Zirui Xue, Shumin Deng
arXiv:2509. 24148v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Test-Driven Development (TDD) is a widely adopted practice that requires developers to create and execute tests alongside implementation.
By Yiran Hu, Nan Jiang, Shanchao Liang, Yi Wu, Lin Tan
arXiv:2607. 08124v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The behavior of an LLM agent is determined not only by the underlying model, but also by its harness: the executable program that constructs context, invokes tools, verifies intermediate results, and recovers from failures.
By Jun Nie, Yonggang Zhang, Jun Song, Qianshu Cai, Dahai Yu, Yike Guo, Xinmei Tian, Bo Han
arXiv:2607. 00990v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language model (LLM)-based software engineering agents are increasingly developed to resolve software issues by generating patches from issue reports and code repositories.
By Yaoqi Guo, Yang Liu, Jie M. Zhang, Yun Ma, Yiling Lou, Zhenpeng Chen
arXiv:2607. 28871v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: When a repair agent runs a test and sees it pass, the result is treated as evidence about the reported defect.
By Xiaonan Xu, Wenjing Wu
arXiv:2608. 14863v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: LLM-based coding agents have advanced rapidly on single-process SWE tasks, with frontier models now clustering in the high-70s on SWE-bench Verified.
By Yibo Yan, Huijuan Wang, Junzhou He, Yizhuo Liang, Shaoyu Wang, Huanchen Sun, Seo Jin Park
RankEvolve is an auto‑research framework that evolves generative ranking models by orchestrating multiple large‑language‑model coding agents through an Executable Operating Protocol (EOP). The system compiles a state machine that enforces phases, gates, branches, and loops, while a meta‑meta‑harness lets agents review and repair each other’s code. In budget‑matched experiments, heterogeneous composition of agents raised execution accuracy from 45.8 % to 62.5 % and reduced silent critical‑defect rates, achieving notable gains on the HSTU recommender and other benchmarks.
By Zheng Chen, Linfeng Liu, Hong Li, Hong Yan
RubricRefine is a training‑free pre‑execution refinement method that generates task‑specific rubrics from tool documentation, scores candidate code against explicit contract checks, and iteratively repairs failures before execution. It achieves an average score of 0.86 across seven models on M3ToolEval without any execution attempts, outperforming prior inference‑time baselines while incurring lower latency. The approach shows consistent performance on single‑step API‑Bank tasks and maintains an advantage in multi‑turn settings on AppWorld, with its effectiveness tied to the quality of the supplied documentation.
By Will LeVine, Brendan Evers, Sam Saltwick, Abhay Venkatesh