arXiv:2604. 03447v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: LLM-based software engineering assistants often reason over multiple artifacts, including code, documentation, signatures, and tests, even when those artifacts are incomplete or mutually inconsistent.
By Noshin Ulfat, Ahsanul Ameen Sabit, Soneya Binta Hossain
The paper discusses the need for independent assurance when coding agents produce both software and its correctness evidence. It identifies four gaps—requirement, conformance, evaluation, and model—between stakeholder intent and production, and proposes a verification framework that separates building from verifying. The framework introduces a Verification Contract, a specification-first phase, and an implementation-aware phase using mutation analysis, property-based testing, and fuzzing, and is evaluated in a study showing that an external verifier detected more seeded faults than the builder’s own tests.
By Sion Israel Sion, Alain April
arXiv:2609.35889v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Tool-using language-model agents select and execute third-party artifacts. Different implementations can return the requested output while producing...
By Xiaoyu Xu, Zi Liang, Minxin Du, Qipeng Xie, Qingqing Ye, Yuyuan Li, Haibo Hu
SWE-Prometheus is a new benchmark that evaluates large language model coding agents on the broader task of improving repository engineering governance, rather than just fixing individual issues. It presents fixed snapshots with open-ended objectives, requiring agents to identify risks, prioritize interventions, and verify changes across six governance dimensions. The benchmark includes 60 repositories and reports metrics such as Normalized Governance Improvement and behavior‑breakage rates, providing a nuanced view of how different models affect governance artifacts and execution‑backed improvements.
By Jiajun Wu, Leixin Sun, Zihan Tan, Yitao Liu, Shuo Li, Jiaru Qian, Shanghaoran Quan, Chuangxin Zhao, Yangxu Liao, Yang Liu, Bin Chong, Guancheng Wan
arXiv:2601. 22025v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Evaluating Large Language Model (LLM) applications differs from conventional software testing because outputs are probabilistic, semantically variable, and sensitive to prompt and model changes.
By Daniel Commey
arXiv:2610.14443v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Model cards, system cards, and safety reports increasingly document LLM safety behaviors, yet safety evaluations typically start from predefined benc...
By Kausar Moshood, Jace Bolante, Roshan Aditya Murali, Manish Motwani