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
SWE‑Gate is a new repository‑level benchmark that evaluates software engineering agents on both functional correctness and review‑derived acceptance constraints. It creates 303 repair instances from real pull‑request review comments across 75 open‑source Python projects, providing separate functional and constraint tests along with compliant and non‑compliant patches. Experiments with four LLM backends show that while 644 repairs pass functional tests, 221 fail to meet the review constraints, highlighting a gap between functional success and full repair compliance.
By Xin He, Yanlin Wang, Mingwei Liu, Jiachi Chen, Hongyu Zhang, Guanbin Li
The paper introduces SWE-Flux, a repository‑level benchmark designed to test large language models’ ability to reason about runtime behavior. It contains 480 execution‑grounded instances from 12 real Python repositories, with gold answers automatically harvested from instrumented test executions. Evaluation of five LLMs shows the task remains difficult, with the best model achieving only 37% accuracy, and the benchmark can generate challenging variants through input perturbation.
By Hamed Taherkhani, Mohammad Abdollahi, Melika Sepidband, Hridya Dhulipala, Tien N. Nguyen, Hadi Hemmati
arXiv:2607. 04537v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Code language models are now trusted collaborators in production workflows for debugging, refactoring, and iterative repair, and every benchmark that evaluates them assumes the instructions they act on are correct.
By Raj Jaiswal, Anany Singh Divy, Savar Bhasin, Adi Bajpai, Tanuja Ganu, Rajiv Ratn Shah
arXiv:2608. 15579v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Industrial software-engineering teams increasingly need LLM agents that turn bug reports into correct patches, yet benchmark-scale operation adds long horizons, tool-use discipline, context persistence, heterogeneous clusters, and evaluation reuse.
By Mehdi Bahrami, Kosaku Kimura, Satoshi Munakata, Satoshi Nakashima, Yu Ishikawa, Kosuke Maeda, Nao Soma, Kenichi Kobayashi, Keisuke Miyazaki, Keizo Kato, Shigeki Fukuta, Tatsuo Kumano, Nobutaka Imamura, Kevin Musgrave, Shahbaz Abdul Khader, Kwun Ho Ngan, Joe Townsend, Fayas Asharindavida, Matthieu Parizy, Akira Sakai, Yuma Ichikawa, Yang Zhao, Michiaki Takizawa, Taku Fukui, Hiroki Ohtsuji, Wei-Peng Chen, Hiromichi Kobashi
arXiv:2607. 19843v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) have made automated program repair (APR) increasingly practical for real-world bugs, but repairing directly from bug reports remains underconstrained.
By Yuhao Tan, Zhibang Yang, Fangkai Yang, Yuan Yao, Yu Kang, Lu Wang, Pu Zhao, Xin Zhang, Xiaoxing Ma, Qingwei Lin, Saravan Rajmohan, Dongmei Zhang
arXiv:2606. 29088v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: There are various benchmarks to evaluate bugfixing capabilities of Large Language Models.
By Bal\'azs Szalontai, \'Abel Szauter, Bal\'azs M\'arton, P\'eter Verebics, Bal\'azs Pint\'er, Tibor Gregorics
arXiv:2607. 28587v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: SWE-bench-like benchmarks are widely used for evaluating LLM's issue resolution capability.
By Manyi Wang, Junjielong Xu, Pinjia He
arXiv:2607. 08981v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: LLM-generated code often compiles, passes tests, and appears correct, yet breaks once deployed.
By Viraaji Mothukuri, Reza M. Parizi
arXiv:2607. 12605v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) have improved automated program repair (APR), but two limitations remain.
By Zhili Huang, Ling Xu, Hongyu Zhang
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 large language models (LLMs) handle bug fixing versus problem solving in competitive programming. Using a dataset of ~3,000 Codeforces submissions and their human fixes, the authors compare LLM-generated patches to human patches and assess whether LLMs prefer to modify buggy code or generate new solutions. Results show that LLMs often alter more lines than necessary and sometimes produce entirely new solutions, performing better when allowed to generate solutions from scratch rather than patching existing code.
By Alexandru Stefan Stoica, Traian Rebedea, Marian Cristian Mihaescu