arXiv AI

From Verification Failures to Reusable Guidance for Coding Agents

The paper presents a method for turning expert diagnoses of verification failures into reusable guidance for coding agents. By combining executable language definitions in the K framework with a set of procedures for constructing specifications, repairing proofs, and auditing their adequacy, the authors achieve a 164/164 success rate on the HumanEval benchmark after two targeted repairs. They further demonstrate that audits can detect defects missed by successful proofs and evaluate the approach on KleverBench and Optimism proofs, highlighting both progress and remaining challenges.

arXiv AI
Sep 18

MAGS: Multi-agent Auto-formalization Guarantees Safety for Agentic Outputs

The paper introduces MAGS, a multi-agent framework that automatically generates executable programs with formal safety guarantees. MAGS translates LLM-generated code into the verification-aware language Dafny, repairs any safety violations using verifier feedback, and then compiles the verified code back into executable form. Evaluations on 220 diverse examples—including CUDA kernels, terminal scripts, and robotic-arm tasks—show a 100% success rate in producing programs that meet frozen safety specifications, with additional safety and functional tests confirming strong performance across domains.

By Albert Wu, Nicholas Roberts, Tzu-Heng Huang, Haoran Lin, Gil Friedman, Sungjun Cho, Gabriel Orlanski, Frederic Sala
arXiv AI
Sep 21

SWE-Proof: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World Issues with Machine-Checked Proofs?

arXiv:2609.21190v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Ensuring the correctness of LLM-generated code is a core challenge for modern software engineering. Benchmarks for agentic code generation check corr...

By George Ma, Benjamin Mikek, Haoyu Li, Ferhat Erata, Yuhao Zhang, Zeren Shui, Behrooz Omidvar Tehrani, Jun Huan, Murali Krishna Ramanathan, Somayeh Sojoudi, Hao Zhou, Anoop Deoras
arXiv AI
Jul 7

Obey, Diverge, Collapse: Blind Obedience to Incorrect Instructions Drives Code LLMs to Irrecoverable Code Semantic Collapse

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 AI
Jun 16

DualGauge: Automated Joint Security-Functionality Benchmarking of Specification-Only Code Generation by LLMs and Coding Agents

arXiv:2511. 20709v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) and LLM-based coding agents are now used to generate code from natural-language specifications, yet ensuring such code is both functionally correct and secure remains a challenge.

By Rupam Patir, Keyan Guo, Suvadra Barua, Abhijeet Pathak, Dinesh Gudimetla, Jiawei Guo, Hongxin Hu, Haipeng Cai
arXiv AI
Sep 1

Understanding Automated Program Repair Agents Through the Lens of Traceability: An Empirical Study

The paper presents a systematic analysis of five state‑of‑the‑art automated program repair agents, tracing their decision‑making across 500 real‑world repair tasks. It finds that while the agents perform well on simple fixes, they struggle with logic‑intensive bugs, often producing verbose, overfitted patches that pass tests without addressing root causes. Key bottlenecks identified include poor test generation, limited regression test selection, and reliance on primitive tooling without access to debuggers or advanced program analysis tools.

By Ira Ceka, Hailie Mitchell, Saurabh Pujar, Luca Buratti, Shyam Ramji, Junfeng Yang, Gail Kaiser, Baishakhi Ray
arXiv AI
Sep 4

SWE-Gate: Passing Functional Tests Is Not Enough for Software Engineering Agents

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