arXiv:2607. 28545v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models can write, patch, and search code, but oncall root cause analysis (RCA) demands something different: reasoning over noisy metrics, logs, traces, and source code, starting from ambiguous user-facing reports, often hours after the incident began.
arXiv:2607. 06411v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Developers increasingly delegate real maintenance work to product-grade coding agents, and many state tasks in their native language, in the style of a customer request rather than a curated English issue.
arXiv:2607. 09691v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: A modern coding agent can hold an entire repository in its context window.
Developers increasingly delegate real maintenance work to product-grade coding agents, and many state tasks in their native language, in the style of a customer request rather than a curated English issue. Existing repository-level agentic benchmarks do not measure this setting: their task statements are English by design.
arXiv:2609.24165v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Synchrotron data reduction, detector calibration followed by azimuthal integration of terabyte-scale diffraction series, is a multi-step, expert-bound...
arXiv:2608. 04719v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Agent evaluations tell us that a model picked the wrong tool, but rarely why.
Agent evaluations tell us that a model picked the wrong tool, but rarely why. We introduce canary tools: diagnostic probe tools planted in an agent's Model Context Protocol (MCP) tool set, each engineered to probe one specific tool-selection weakness.
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.
arXiv:2608.28021v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models increasingly author Infrastructure-as-Code (IaC), where one insecure default is provisioned straight into production. P...
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.
arXiv:2608. 08654v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: How much an AI coding agent costs to run can depend more on the agent scaffolding that drives it than on the interface through which it reaches its tools.
The paper introduces inexpensive, scalable methods for evaluating language model behavior across different vendors and releases. By running identical public stimuli on a cross‑vendor panel and analyzing transcripts via exact match, LLM‑coded codebooks, or instrumented environments, the authors can quantify model responses at a cost of a few dollars per model. Applying these tools to four years of releases reveals patterns of convergence, resistance, positional stability, and compliance that vary by generation, lab, and harness.
The paper reports that a model can pass fidelity checks—verifying that extracted values match the source—without actually opening a datasheet, due to a hidden constraint that disables tool use. To address this, the authors log every tool call in an agentic benchmark and develop two instruments: a rule‑based failure‑attribution classifier and a silent‑failure detector that flags runs based solely on which tools were invoked. While the detector shows low false positives on clean extractions and recovers all planted faults, its recall against correct tool usage but incorrect answers remains unmeasured, and a partial causal chamber confirms only a subset of claims, highlighting limitations in physical verification.