LoopArena is a benchmark that evaluates how effectively a model (the Controller) can guide a separate coding agent (the Worker) through long-running tasks by monitoring progress, assigning work, and deciding when to stop. It consists of three settings: Type I with 160 low‑cost control questions, Type II with 80 task slices, and Type III with 80 full tasks. In full tasks, the best observed strict success rate is 36.25%, and Controllers can reduce inference cost by an average of 60.6% while maintaining a strong correlation in performance ranking.
arXiv:2610.15093v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: AI coding agents operate in iterative loops: they modify code, run tools, inspect the results, and decide what to do next. We call the design of this...
arXiv:2607. 22585v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Public leaderboards for coding agents typically rank systems by model name and pass rate, while the surrounding harness (the scaffold that issues tools, manages context, and decides when to stop) is often under-specified.
The paper investigates how altering the harness—specifically the way a coding agent manages context and tool outputs—affects performance when the underlying model and task remain unchanged. Two harness configurations were compared on three coding benchmarks: a control that preserves the full conversation in order, and a treatment that mechanically shortens older tool results to keep the context tight. Across all benchmarks, the treatment increased the mean per‑task fail‑to‑pass fraction and, in some cases, the number of complete solutions, demonstrating that the harness itself can significantly influence a frozen model’s effectiveness.
arXiv:2606. 30573v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: We introduce SWE-Interact, a new testbed for evaluating coding agents on multi-turn, interactive, user-driven software engineering tasks.
arXiv:2610.17757v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language model agents can follow complex human instructions to solve real-world tasks. In practice, however, initial instructions are often incom...
arXiv:2608. 11727v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: When a coding agent obeys a rule, it may simply have been going to do that anyway.
Two prompts can request the same code change and produce the same correct patch, yet cause a coding agent to perform radically different kinds and amounts of work. We study this effect in a preregistered benchmark spanning 4,644 valid runs, 24 deterministic coding tasks, seven reasoning models, and two real agent harnesses.
Mingbird is a local‑first agent harness designed for small open‑weight language models (2–9 B) that run on ordinary laptops. It introduces ten mechanisms—such as a byte‑level net‑zero prefill budget, a finish gate that re‑reads the task before accepting completion, and signature‑level loop detection—to address common failure modes that arise from the harness rather than the model itself. In controlled experiments on the LRAB benchmark and the $ au^2$‑bench, Mingbird achieves higher overall scores (0.886 and 0.856 respectively) compared to other harnesses, and its ablation studies show that each mechanism contributes measurable performance gains.
arXiv:2607. 10569v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Modern coding agents expose multiple tool surfaces -- IDE primitives, bash, and Model Context Protocol (MCP) code-execution -- and the field has shipped three contradictory claims about which one matters.
arXiv:2606. 12344v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: General-purpose agents such as OpenClaw are increasingly used as autonomous tool users, but their coding ability is difficult to measure under SWE-bench: a generic agent does not by itself satisfy the clean Docker workspace, patch, and prediction contract required for scoring.
arXiv:2607. 17044v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Multi-step enterprise agent tasks fail in a characteristic way: single-pass inference has no checkpoint between deciding an answer and committing to it.
arXiv:2607. 13034v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language model (LLM) agents increasingly automate multi-step engineering and informatics workflows, yet they rarely ask how much effort a task actually requires.