arXiv:2608. 04804v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Frontier language models can resolve repository-level software issues, but each attempt is expensive, and existing routers select a model from the issue text alone.
arXiv:2609.15982v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Skills extend an LLM agent beyond its parametric knowledge, and the gain they promise rests on picking the right one. Deployed harnesses route by pre...
arXiv:2605.18859v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: LLM routing matters most in long-horizon applications such as coding agents, deep research systems, and computer-use agents, where a single u...
MARS (Multi-Agent Relay of Specialized LLMs) is a prompt-only framework that assigns specialized LLM agents—each focused on a particular algorithmic domain such as dynamic programming, graphs, or geometry—to collaboratively solve competitive programming problems. Retrieval-augmented generation selects a small team of relevant specialists for each problem, and the agents iteratively refine a C++17 solution through sandboxed testing, passing structured packets between them until a final infrastructure-fixer normalizes the code. On the CodeContests benchmark, MARS achieves a pass rate of 0.624 with Gemma 4, improving over direct prompting by 14.4 percentage points while reducing wall‑clock cost and token‑spend variance compared to CodeSIM.
arXiv:2607. 19338v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Coding agents increasingly operate in executable environments where a failed attempt produces actionable feedback rather than merely an incorrect answer.
arXiv:2609.26086v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: An agentic retrieval system issues a sequence of search queries and must decide, at each step, whether the evidence collected so far is enough to stop....
arXiv:2607. 07946v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: DeepSWE is a benchmark of 113 original, long-horizon software engineering tasks for evaluating coding agents.
arXiv:2608. 00106v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Agentic systems must decide not only what answer to produce, but which reasoning and execution operations should precede it.
arXiv:2608. 14927v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Multi-agent large language model (LLM) systems can improve reasoning by spending more computation, but deployment requires deciding when extra collaboration is worth its cost.
arXiv:2607. 27083v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: As LLM agents increasingly depend on diverse external services such as search engines, databases, and connectors, agent harnesses face a fundamental tool-selection challenge: acquiring too few tools leaves the task under-informed, while too many adds cost, context load, and privacy exposure.
arXiv:2608.23078v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models increasingly operate over large collections of tools, functions, APIs, and specialized agents. As the candidate action space grow...
The paper investigates why large‑language‑model coding agents rarely request a second chunk of tool output, focusing on the precision‑at‑1 rate ($p_1$) of the gold item appearing first in the first chunk. In a benchmark of 500 software‑engineering tasks, the authors compare six value functions and find that increasing $p_1$ does not systematically improve downstream accuracy; the agent can recover the correct answer from any position within the chunk. Adding file‑metadata signals to a keyword scorer actually reduces $p_1$, while a parameter‑free keyword scorer improves $p_1$ but still fails to boost overall accuracy.
arXiv:2603.01209v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: In CodeAct, language-model agents write Python that calls tools and use execution feedback to choose actions. Persistent runtimes preserve Python v...