arXiv Computation and Language By Wenqiang Zhu, Xinping Lei, Zhiyi Lai, Zhengshuo Gong, Tianzhuang He, Songwei Yu, Weihao Li, Jingxuan Xu, Zihang Xu, Gang Wu, Zhongqiu Wang, Yuhui Bai, Jie Li, Zhao Liu, Junhao Fan, Yan Wu, Yanan Wu, Jiaheng Liu, Quan Gu, Ariel Deng

ANCHOR: Assessing Naturalistic Constraint Hierarchies and Ordering in Repository-Grounded Agentic Coding

Read the original on arXiv Computation and Language →

The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv Computation and Language.

arXiv Computation and Language
Sep 22

CCTU: A Benchmark for Tool Use under Complex Constraints

CCTU is a new benchmark designed to evaluate large language models (LLMs) on their ability to use tools under complex constraints. It includes 200 test cases that average seven constraint types and 4,700‑token prompts, covering resource, behavior, toolset, and response dimensions. An executable validation module performs step‑level checks, and nine state‑of‑the‑art LLMs were tested, revealing that none exceed a 20% task completion rate when strict constraints are enforced, with frequent violations and limited self‑refinement.

By Junjie Ye, Guoqiang Zhang, Wenjie Fu, Zelin Li, Tao Gui, Qi Zhang, Xuanjing Huang
arXiv AI
Aug 11

A Unified Issue Resolution Benchmark for Requirement Clarification, Planning, and Code Generation for Coding Agents

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.

By Xin Zhou, Chun Yong Chong, Kisub Kim, Yun Peng, Rui Shu, Zihan Wu, Xu Han, Guowen Yuan, Zeyang Zhuang, Jounghoon Kim, Jeongjin Ju, Seongmin Ju, Taein Yoon, David Lo
arXiv AI
Sep 12

SemVerBench: Benchmarking LLM Comprehension of Version-Constraint Resolution Semantics

SemVerBench is a benchmark that evaluates how well large language models (LLMs) understand and apply version-constraint resolution semantics, such as determining whether a version satisfies constraints like ^1.2.3 or >=2.0. The study finds that many models struggle with certain corner cases, with GPT‑5.1 performing poorly while Claude and Opus perform much better. The authors suggest that the failures stem from an activation/application gap rather than a lack of knowledge, and recommend that coding agents delegate version resolution to a dedicated resolver tool.

By Qibai Chen, Zeming Liu