arXiv AI By Mehdi Bahrami, Kosaku Kimura, Satoshi Munakata, Satoshi Nakashima, Yu Ishikawa, Kosuke Maeda, Nao Soma, Kenichi Kobayashi, Keisuke Miyazaki, Keizo Kato, Shigeki Fukuta, Tatsuo Kumano, Nobutaka Imamura, Kevin Musgrave, Shahbaz Abdul Khader, Kwun Ho Ngan, Joe Townsend, Fayas Asharindavida, Matthieu Parizy, Akira Sakai, Yuma Ichikawa, Yang Zhao, Michiaki Takizawa, Taku Fukui, Hiroki Ohtsuji, Wei-Peng Chen, Hiromichi Kobashi

Kozuchi Agent: A Language-Agnostic Open-Weight Agent for Software Repair

Read the original on arXiv AI →

arXiv:2608. 15579v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Industrial software-engineering teams increasingly need LLM agents that turn bug reports into correct patches, yet benchmark-scale operation adds long horizons, tool-use discipline, context persistence, heterogeneous clusters, and evaluation reuse.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv AI.

arXiv AI
Sep 2

UniACE: A Unified Framework for Evaluating LLM Agentic Capabilities

UniACE is a unified framework that standardizes the evaluation of large language model (LLM) agents by representing each benchmark as an instruction–tool–environment triplet and running models through a shared, task‑agnostic harness in isolated runtimes. It preserves native success criteria, offers an offline mode for dynamic‑resource tasks, and standardizes efficiency metrics, execution records, and failure attribution. Applying UniACE to 7 benchmarks across 24 domains and 15 models revealed significant score shifts, ranking reversals, and sensitivity to evidence representation, highlighting the impact of evaluation configuration on reported agent performance.

By Pengyu Zhu, Lijun Li, Yaxing Lyu, Qianxin Luo, Jingyi Yang, Yi Liu, Tingfeng Hui, Xinyu Yuan, Li Sun, Sen Su, Jing Shao
arXiv AI
Sep 1

Understanding Automated Program Repair Agents Through the Lens of Traceability: An Empirical Study

The paper presents a systematic analysis of five state‑of‑the‑art automated program repair agents, tracing their decision‑making across 500 real‑world repair tasks. It finds that while the agents perform well on simple fixes, they struggle with logic‑intensive bugs, often producing verbose, overfitted patches that pass tests without addressing root causes. Key bottlenecks identified include poor test generation, limited regression test selection, and reliance on primitive tooling without access to debuggers or advanced program analysis tools.

By Ira Ceka, Hailie Mitchell, Saurabh Pujar, Luca Buratti, Shyam Ramji, Junfeng Yang, Gail Kaiser, Baishakhi Ray