arXiv:2606. 14948v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: LLMs have substantially improved software engineering yet real-world development requires architectural understanding.
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. 29520v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used as assistants across the software development lifecycle, yet their ability to reason about software architecture remains largely unmeasured.
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.
arXiv:2606. 01385v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Software architecture design is a critical yet inherently complex and knowledge-intensive phase that requires balancing competing quality attributes and adapting to evolving requirements.
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.
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:2603. 05026v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Language model (LM) agents have driven substantial progress in automated software engineering (SWE), yet building and testing software repositories at scale remains a largely manual and labor-intensive bottleneck.
arXiv:2607. 03691v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Coding agents, autonomous systems that use large language models (LLMs) to resolve software engineering tasks, rely on agent harness: a middleware layer in between a developer and a large language model that orchestrates system prompts, tool execution, context management, and iterative reasoning loops.
BuildBench introduces a realistic benchmark for evaluating large language model agents on the task of compiling open‑source software (OSS). It includes diverse OSS projects that lack clear build instructions, have undocumented dependencies, and may require source patching or script modification. The authors also present OSS‑BUILD‑AGENT, a baseline LLM‑based agent that retrieves build instructions effectively and achieves state‑of‑the‑art performance on the benchmark.
Agent Seer is a pipeline that automatically synthesizes realistic evaluation scenarios for AI agents that use external tools, using only the tool’s specification (function names, natural‑language descriptions, and typed parameter schemas). Starting from a single Model Context Protocol (MCP) specification, it enriches raw schemas, generates graded scenarios with synthetic tool outputs, and expands them into mock‑data‑grounded multi‑turn dialogues that demonstrate strong tool‑calling correctness and conversational coherence. Across seven diverse MCP specifications, the pipeline achieves high quality, with parameter‑schema complexity emerging as the main driver of quality variation and argument‑value accuracy identified as the dominant failure mode.
arXiv:2608. 13522v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: AI agents are increasingly used for programming, but do not provide any guarantee on the correctness of generated code.
AI agents are increasingly used for programming, but do not provide any guarantee on the correctness of generated code. Verified code generation, in which an agent produces both an implementation and a machine-checked proof of its specification, offers a stronger path toward trustworthy AI-generated software.