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.
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.
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.
arXiv:2608. 19799v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Software increasingly functions as part of the scientific instrument itself, making failures in scientific code capable of compromising not only program behavior but also the evidence underlying scientific conclusions.
arXiv:2608. 09072v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language model-powered coding agents are increasingly used to modify existing code repositories, for example, by adding features or fixing bugs.
SWE‑bench Science is a benchmark for evaluating coding agents on scientific software engineering tasks, comprising 119 tasks from 98 GitHub repositories across 20 scientific domains. The tasks are grouped into Issue‑driven, Expert‑exploratory, and Engineering‑integration paradigms, and even the best agent, Claude Code with Opus‑5 (max), achieves a pass@1 below 50%. The study identifies four common failure mechanisms—lack of scientific knowledge, misguided exploration, incomplete repair coverage, and poor generalization—and shows that providing scientific guidance can both help and hinder repair depending on its alignment with the task.
arXiv:2607. 12605v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) have improved automated program repair (APR), but two limitations remain.
arXiv:2607. 08981v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: LLM-generated code often compiles, passes tests, and appears correct, yet breaks once deployed.
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: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.
The paper introduces SWE Refactor Bench, a benchmark of 20 whole‑repository migrations aimed at testing whether coding agents can autonomously perform long‑horizon stack migrations. It employs a three‑stage evaluation—Migration Audit, Behavioural Tests, and Agentic Verification—to assess both migration completeness and behavioural correctness, revealing that only 5.4 % of runs succeed across all stages. The study shows that agents struggle with migration tasks, especially language rewrites, and highlights the need for more robust coding‑agent capabilities.
arXiv:2601.19066v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Bug Reproduction Tests (BRTs) have been used in many Automated Program Repair (APR) systems, primarily for validating fixes and aiding fix ge...
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.