arXiv:2608. 04783v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The integration of Large Language Models (LLMs) into software engineering has shifted the focus from function-level generation to repository-scale assistance.
arXiv:2606. 14948v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: LLMs have substantially improved software engineering yet real-world development requires architectural understanding.
arXiv:2507. 11059v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: The rapid advancement of Large Language Models (LLMs) in software engineering has revealed critical limitations in existing benchmarks, particularly the widely used SWE-bench dataset.
E2E-SWE is a benchmark that tests large language models’ ability to create complete, functional software repositories from scratch. It includes 186 tasks across 11 programming languages, each requiring an agent to build an installable project based solely on a natural‑language specification and an empty workspace, while passing a hidden test suite. The benchmark was crafted by software engineers and LLMs, then refined through iterative verification by autonomous agents to ensure clarity and solvability.
The study investigates whether large language models can extract Architectural Design Decisions (ADDs) from source code commits. Using four LLMs (Gemini 3 Pro, DeepSeek R1, Kimi K2, Qwen3) with zero‑shot and few‑shot prompting on 30 developer‑written ADDs, the authors evaluate outputs with ROUGE‑L, BLEU, METEOR, and BERTScore. Results show all models achieve a BERT‑F1 above 0.81, with few‑shot prompting slightly improving alignment, but the generated ADDs tend to be overly long, implementation‑focused, and lack the rationale behind the decisions.
arXiv:2605. 13138v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Automated detection of vulnerability-fixing commits (\vfcs) is critical for timely security patch deployment, as advisory databases lag patch releases by a median of 25 days and many fixes never receive advisories.
arXiv:2507. 22580v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Automated Program Repair (APR) seeks to automatically correct software bugs without requiring human intervention.
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.
The paper introduces MCR-Bench, a benchmark for realistic multi‑round code review that includes 2,269 real‑world tasks across five programming languages, each annotated with fine‑grained defect information and dynamic state labels. Experiments with mainstream large language models show limited overall performance, especially as interaction rounds increase, and reveal that model accuracy varies by defect type and severity. Error analysis identifies key failure mechanisms such as cross‑round temporal misalignment and insufficient long‑range memory.
arXiv:2607. 08981v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: LLM-generated code often compiles, passes tests, and appears correct, yet breaks once deployed.
The paper introduces CodeRQ-Bench, the first benchmark for assessing large language model reasoning quality across coding tasks such as generation, summarization, and classification. It analyzes over a thousand mismatches from existing evaluators, identifies recurring limitations, and derives design insights that lead to a new two‑stage evaluator, VERA. Experiments show VERA outperforms strong baselines, improving AUCROC by up to 0.26 and AUPRC by up to 0.21 on four datasets.
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.
Large Language Models (LLMs) are evolving from simple code completion tools to repository‑scale agents capable of retrieving context, editing files, executing tools, and engaging in security‑sensitive workflows. A structured survey up to May 31 2026 reviews LLM work across software engineering and security tasks, adaptation mechanisms, artifact granularity, and evaluation design, and introduces an assurance framework that separates functional correctness, security, operational reliability, evidence provenance, and agent authority. The review highlights that while execution feedback and repository access improve engineering task completion, they do not guarantee security, and static‑analysis labels rarely ensure deployable correctness; it also identifies common validity threats and proposes a minimum reporting protocol and a research agenda focused on jointly secure‑and‑functional benchmarks, repository‑scale threat models, calibrated human oversight, longitudinal maintainability evidence, and reproducible agent evaluation.