<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>
<feed xmlns:opensearch="http://a9.com/-/spec/opensearch/1.1/" xmlns:arxiv="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <id>https://arxiv.org/api/QdUzSvGZT3TvFR4ATgLd0gem4LE</id>
  <title>arXiv Query: search_query=abs:"SWE-bench"&amp;id_list=&amp;start=0&amp;max_results=120</title>
  <updated>2026-09-06T21:28:06Z</updated>
  <link href="https://arxiv.org/api/query?search_query=abs:%22SWE-bench%22&amp;start=0&amp;max_results=120&amp;id_list=" type="application/atom+xml"/>
  <opensearch:itemsPerPage>120</opensearch:itemsPerPage>
  <opensearch:totalResults>533</opensearch:totalResults>
  <opensearch:startIndex>0</opensearch:startIndex>
  <entry>
    <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2609.02783v1</id>
    <title>EarlyEval: Cheaper Agent Evaluation via Early Outcome Prediction</title>
    <updated>2026-09-02T16:15:18Z</updated>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.02783v1" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2609.02783v1" rel="related" type="application/pdf" title="pdf"/>
    <summary>Evaluating LLM agents is essential for guiding their development, yet it has grown prohibitively expensive: a single pass of a frontier model over an agentic benchmark can cost hundreds to thousands of dollars, a price paid repeatedly across iterative development cycles. Prior efforts, centered on benchmark distillation, reduce the number of evaluation tasks but leave the cost of executing each retained task untouched. In this work, we introduce early outcome prediction, a complementary axis of efficiency that instead cuts cost within each task. Our key insight is that an agent's final outcome is often evident from its intermediate behavior well before execution completes. We instantiate this idea in EarlyEval, a lightweight framework that trains a pair of LightGBM success and failure classifiers over behavioral, textual, and reference-solution features, and halts an agent run the moment either classifier crosses a calibrated confidence threshold, adding negligible per-step overhead. Across three benchmarks, SWE-bench Verified, TerminalBench, and Toolathlon, EarlyEval can eliminate 13%-26% of agent steps and up to 44.1% input tokens and 29.4% output tokens at 89%-97% prediction accuracy, while perturbing per-agent resolve rates by only one to two percentage points on average.</summary>
    <category term="cs.CL" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <published>2026-09-02T16:15:18Z</published>
    <arxiv:comment>Code and data available at https://github.com/inphotoo/earlyeval</arxiv:comment>
    <arxiv:primary_category term="cs.CL"/>
    <author>
      <name>Yuling Shi</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Zhensu Sun</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Junsen Dong</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Chengcheng Wan</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>David Lo</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Xiaodong Gu</name>
    </author>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2609.02750v1</id>
    <title>Bilevel Coordinated Reflection: A Game-Theoretic Approach to Multi-Agent LLM Systems</title>
    <updated>2026-09-02T15:50:10Z</updated>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.02750v1" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2609.02750v1" rel="related" type="application/pdf" title="pdf"/>
    <summary>Multi-agent LLM systems commonly use an orchestrator to decompose a task for a team of workers and then improve through textual reflection. Despite strong empirical results, these systems lack a unified account of coordination, memory improvement, and the role of external verification. We model orchestrator-worker interaction as a bilevel coordination game: under bounded coupling, the workers' local-update game is an approximate potential game whose equilibrium slack is controlled by decomposition quality. We then analyse reflection as stochastic movement over semantic memory states. For free-form reflection, we derive a finite-time upper bound, prove worst-case tightness, and give a positive lower bound under a falsifiable persistent-harm condition. We further prove an information-theoretic impossibility result: no gate that observes only the generated transcript can improve uniformly over text-indistinguishable environments, whereas an environment-grounded gate can. Motivated by this separation, we introduce Stochastic Reflective Memory Ascent (SRMA), which accepts a candidate memory only after a grounded evaluation risk strictly decreases. Under calibration and non-degenerate corrective mass, SRMA converges exactly, geometrically or polynomially; matching constructions show that both rate regimes are order-tight. We also provide confidence gating for stochastic evaluation and re-anchoring guarantees for piecewise-stationary environments. Experiments instantiate these objects with environment-grounded metrics and test the predicted coordination and drift laws. On 500 SWE-bench instances, the complete Kimi-based system resolves 72.2% versus a 70.8% public mini-SWE-agent reference. Code: https://github.com/YihangChen9/Bilevel-Coordinated-Reflection</summary>
    <category term="cs.AI" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <published>2026-09-02T15:50:10Z</published>
    <arxiv:primary_category term="cs.AI"/>
    <author>
      <name>Yihang Chen</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Yuxiang Chen</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Yuxuan Huang</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Meng Fang</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Weilin Luo</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Jun Wang</name>
    </author>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.19799v2</id>
    <title>SWE-bench Science: Can Coding Agents Resolve Engineering Tasks in Science?</title>
    <updated>2026-09-01T15:45:57Z</updated>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.19799v2" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2608.19799v2" rel="related" type="application/pdf" title="pdf"/>
    <summary>Software increasingly functions as part of the scientific instrument itself, making failures in scientific code capable of compromising not only program behavior but also the evidence underlying scientific conclusions. Yet existing evaluations of coding agents largely emphasize aggregate task success, providing limited insight into why agents fail when repairing scientific software. We introduce \textbf{SWE-bench Science}, a repository-level benchmark for scientific software engineering comprising 119 tasks from 98 GitHub repositories across 20 scientific domains. Each task is organized into one of three paradigms: Issue-driven, Expert-exploratory, and Engineering-integration. Even the best-performing agent, \textbf{Claude Code with Opus-5 (max), achieves a pass@1 below 50\%}, highlighting the substantial challenges posed by scientific software engineering. We identify four recurring failure mechanisms: deficits in scientific knowledge or abstraction, misguided exploration or surface-level repair, incomplete repair coverage or system integration, and failures to generalize scientific knowledge beyond observed cases in our analysis. We further conduct a paired ablation that removes explicit scientific guidance while preserving the repository and executable engineering context. The results show that scientific knowledge is not uniformly beneficial: well-grounded information can constrain repair and improve average performance and token efficiency, whereas poorly aligned guidance can induce anchoring and does not necessarily improve exact repair success. Together, SWE-bench Science provides a broad testbed for studying both the capabilities and failure mechanisms of coding agents in scientific software engineering.</summary>
    <category term="cs.CL" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <category term="cs.SE" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <published>2026-08-20T08:53:15Z</published>
    <arxiv:comment>26 pages, 7 figures</arxiv:comment>
    <arxiv:primary_category term="cs.CL"/>
    <author>
      <name>Zhipeng Xu</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Jiahao Lu</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Yining Zheng</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Yuxin Wang</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Xipeng Qiu</name>
    </author>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2609.01245v1</id>
    <title>Explore More, Drift Less: Outcome-Only Reinforcement Learning Can Suffice for Long-Horizon Interactive Agents</title>
    <updated>2026-09-01T13:44:40Z</updated>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.01245v1" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2609.01245v1" rel="related" type="application/pdf" title="pdf"/>
    <summary>Reinforcement learning is a natural way to post-train LLM agents for long-horizon interactive tasks judged only by end-of-task verification, yet a shared belief holds that outcome-only RL soon hits a ceiling on small open models. Recent work therefore compensates around the training with denser rewards, SFT priors, skill libraries, curated memory, or multi-agent orchestration. We argue the ceiling is an artifact of two failures of common practice. Signal starvation: group-relative RL with sparse outcome-only rewards yields a gradient only when a task's rollout group mixes successes and failures, so under-scaled exploration silences exactly the hardest, most instructive tasks. Policy drift: squeezing many updates out of a small task pool degrades the policy itself, as an unanchored objective lets the sampling distribution collapse exactly when saturation has already made informative groups rare. We present CANOPY (Coverage-ANchored On-PolicY RL), a minimalist protocol attacking both directly: scale same-task exploration until the natural signal reappears, keep every update on-policy, KL-anchored, and confined to the agent's own action tokens, then cash in an enlarged interaction budget at test time. On AppWorld, a long-horizon interactive coding benchmark, a Qwen3-14B policy trained with CANOPY through environment interaction alone--without task-specific supervision, auxiliary credit signals, or elaborate agent scaffolding--topped the public leaderboard (Feb. 2026; Test-Normal TGC 86.9, Test-Challenge 67.6), and the same design principles lift Qwen3.5-9B on SWE-bench Verified by 16.6 points. Agentic RL alone thus internalizes long-horizon capability directly into a small open model; we plan to release the complete training stack at https://github.com/AlibabaResearch/SignalCoverageRL.</summary>
    <category term="cs.LG" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <category term="cs.AI" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <published>2026-09-01T13:44:40Z</published>
    <arxiv:comment>13 pages, 6 figures</arxiv:comment>
    <arxiv:primary_category term="cs.LG"/>
    <author>
      <name>Liming Pu</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Xiaoxia Li</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Yifu Liu</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Teng Cao</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Bin Yang</name>
    </author>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.21811v2</id>
    <title>Steer, Don't Solve: Training Small Critic Models for Large Code Agents</title>
    <updated>2026-09-01T05:29:03Z</updated>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.21811v2" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2606.21811v2" rel="related" type="application/pdf" title="pdf"/>
    <summary>Coding tasks are typically complicated and require multiple capabilities, ranging from high-level planning to low-level implementation. While coding agents are optimized for the joint capabilities, individual capabilities such as high-level planning may have different optima and remain a major bottleneck. To address this challenge, we train a separate critic model that is specialized in high-level planning to steer the coding agent in inference. We construct SFT and DPO data to train the critic model to identify errors made by the coding agent and provide correct and clear high-level guidance without generating concrete actions. Experiments show that our fine-tuned 4B and 8B critic models significantly improve the performance of 6 larger coding agents (e.g., improving the resolved rates of GLM-4.7-Flash-30B-A3B and GPT-OSS-120B by 16.0% and 14.4% on SWE-Bench Verified). The critic model also reduces the total inference costs for some coding agents by solving tasks in fewer steps (e.g., reducing the per-example inference cost for GPT-OSS-20B from \$0.07 to \$0.03). Code: https://github.com/shubhamrgandhi/critic-training</summary>
    <category term="cs.SE" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <category term="cs.AI" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <category term="cs.LG" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <published>2026-06-20T00:14:38Z</published>
    <arxiv:primary_category term="cs.SE"/>
    <author>
      <name>Shubham Gandhi</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Yiqing Xie</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Atharva Naik</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Ruichen Zhu</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Carolyn Rose</name>
    </author>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2609.00749v1</id>
    <title>ContextPipe: Database-Inspired Context Assembly for Long-Horizon Agents</title>
    <updated>2026-09-01T05:27:38Z</updated>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.00749v1" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2609.00749v1" rel="related" type="application/pdf" title="pdf"/>
    <summary>Long-horizon large language model (LLM) agents require context assembly: the runtime must decide what to include in each prompt, in what order, and when to compact history under a hard context-window budget and a byte-sensitive prompt cache. In production agentic systems, this logic is scattered across prompt builders, ad hoc compaction routines, cache-break workarounds, and per-provider shims. We argue that context assembly is structurally isomorphic to query execution in a relational database: both execute under a hard budget, exploit a tiered cache, and leverage statistics. We adopt this discipline in ContextPipe: a five-phase pipeline (Plan Bind Optimize Execute Feedback) backed by a structured data-source catalog, a deterministic cache-aware optimizer, and an EXPLAIN ANALYZE trace. We show that context in ContextPipe is auditable, replayable, and failure-isolated. A preliminary evaluation using the SWE-bench Pro Qutebrowser subset shows that, compared with the append-only context construction policy, ContextPipe reduces total token volume by 31%, LLM calls by 23%, and response time by 9%, at the cost of a lower KV cache-hit ratio.</summary>
    <category term="cs.AI" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <category term="cs.DB" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <published>2026-09-01T05:27:38Z</published>
    <arxiv:primary_category term="cs.AI"/>
    <author>
      <name>Peng Xu</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Zuyu Zhang</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Yuze Sun</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Feng Tian</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Long Wang</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Chen Zhang</name>
    </author>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.02606v2</id>
    <title>ChainSWE: Benchmarking Coding Agents on Multi-Bug Software Maintenance</title>
    <updated>2026-09-01T01:46:25Z</updated>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.02606v2" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2607.02606v2" rel="related" type="application/pdf" title="pdf"/>
    <summary>Language model (LM) agents are increasingly deployed to maintain codebases over extended periods, fixing streams of related defects while carrying context from one fix to the next. Yet existing software engineering (SWE) benchmarks evaluate models one bug at a time: the repository is reset, the codebase is re-read, and a single self-contained issue is graded in isolation. This setting collapses a continuous maintenance workflow into a series of independent sessions, ignoring the cumulative dependencies that make real-world bug fixing challenging. To bridge this gap, we introduce ChainSWE, the first benchmark for evaluating agents on sequential, dependent bug fixes within a shared codebase. We collect chronological chains of 304 issues across 54 Python projects, mined from six SWE-bench-family datasets. Our evaluation across a range of agents and models reveals a consistent performance drop by up to 70% as the chain length increases.</summary>
    <category term="cs.SE" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <published>2026-07-01T13:32:15Z</published>
    <arxiv:primary_category term="cs.SE"/>
    <author>
      <name>Qirui Jin</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Lingching Tung</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Kenan Li</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Qiyang Shi</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Yushi She</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Huanzhong Jia</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Harrison Zhao</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Kejing Xia</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Zhenbang Du</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Jiaxin Pei</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Zhenyu Zhang</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Zhen Qi</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Yuyan Duan</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Wenke Lee</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Zijian Jin</name>
    </author>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.24820v2</id>
    <title>SHERLOC: Structured Diagnostic Localization for Code Repair Agents</title>
    <updated>2026-08-31T17:39:33Z</updated>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.24820v2" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2606.24820v2" rel="related" type="application/pdf" title="pdf"/>
    <summary>LLM agents solve repository-level coding tasks through multi-turn tool use, but utilize half their budget on locating faults before editing. Dedicated localization frameworks have emerged, yet are still evaluated as file retrieval rather than actionable diagnosis, producing locations without the diagnostic context a repair agent needs. We introduce SHERLOC (Structured Hypothesis-driven Exploration and Reasoning for Localization), a training-free framework pairing a reasoning LLM with compact repository tools and self-recovery, without fine-tuning or multi-agent orchestration. SHERLOC reaches state-of-the-art localization across model scales: 84.33% accuracy@1 on SWE-Bench Lite and 81.27% recall@1 on SWE-Bench Verified; at ~30B parameters, it matches or outperforms other agentic methods. Injecting our locations and diagnostic findings into repair agents yields an average +5.95 pp resolve-rate gain from the best SHERLOC result per setting on SWE-Bench Verified. SHERLOC cuts localization and total tokens by 36.7% and 23.1% on average.</summary>
    <category term="cs.CL" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <published>2026-06-23T17:05:50Z</published>
    <arxiv:comment>Accepted to EMNLP 2026 Main Conference. Code: https://github.com/NVIDIA-NeMo/Skills/tree/main/recipes/sherloc</arxiv:comment>
    <arxiv:primary_category term="cs.CL"/>
    <author>
      <name>Hovhannes Tamoyan</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Sean Narenthiran</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Erik Arakelyan</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Mira Mezini</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Boris Ginsburg</name>
    </author>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.27787v2</id>
    <title>Long Live the Librarian! A Persistent Search Sub-Agent for Energy-Efficient Multi-Agent Software Engineering Systems</title>
    <updated>2026-08-31T13:47:03Z</updated>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.27787v2" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2605.27787v2" rel="related" type="application/pdf" title="pdf"/>
    <summary>Multi-agent systems (MAS) have substantially advanced autonomous software engineering (SWE), but their growing inference energy demands raise sustainability concerns. In this paper, we demonstrate that this cost is concentrated in an overlooked source: redundant output tokens generated across agents. Two empirical findings ground this claim. First, our per-token energy attribution for MAS reveals a sharp asymmetry: an output token consumes 30 to 1,000 times more energy than an input or cached token. Second, MAS inflate per-episode output because agents repeatedly re-explore overlapping repository regions. To address this inefficiency, we propose Librarian, a persistent search sub-agent that tracks repository-search history and suppresses redundant exploration actions across agents. By returning short references to file regions instead of full file excerpts, Librarian further reduces output-token volume. On SWE-Bench Verified and SWE-Bench-Live, Librarian reduces per-episode GPU energy consumption of existing multi-agent SWE systems by 11 to 30% while preserving task performance. Our code is available at https://github.com/ml-postech/Librarian.</summary>
    <category term="cs.MA" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <category term="cs.CL" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <published>2026-05-27T00:10:24Z</published>
    <arxiv:comment>2026 EMNLP Main Conference</arxiv:comment>
    <arxiv:primary_category term="cs.MA"/>
    <author>
      <name>Seunghyuk Cho</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Sunghyun Choi</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Jaeseung Heo</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Youngbin Choi</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Saemi Moon</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>MoonJeong Park</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Dongwoo Kim</name>
    </author>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.27831v2</id>
    <title>RealSWE: A Compositional Evaluation of Coding Agents under Realistic User Requests</title>
    <updated>2026-08-31T12:23:59Z</updated>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.27831v2" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2608.27831v2" rel="related" type="application/pdf" title="pdf"/>
    <summary>Coding agents are now commonly evaluated on the SWE-bench family of benchmarks, whose tasks are built from curated GitHub issues: long, structured, and information-rich. Real user requests, however, are typically far shorter and less structured. To characterize this gap, we define a six-category information taxonomy and four dimensions of linguistic style, and apply them to real user prompts from SWE-chat and problem statements from SWE-bench Verified and Pro. We find that requests carrying only a problem statement, alone or with limited additional context, account for 88% of real prompts but just 7% of benchmark problems. Furthermore, 87% of real prompts are casually written whereas 94% of benchmark problems are formal. Guided by these observations, we introduce RealSWE, 381 multi-variant task families derived from SWE-bench Verified and Pro. Variants within each family share the same underlying task and gold patch while differing only in information composition and linguistic style. Evaluating seven contemporary LLMs with RealSWE, we find that i) realistic inputs reduce resolution rates by 6.4 pp on average and can change model rankings. Controlled analysis further shows that ii) including Desired Behavior and Motivation significantly affects performance, whereas Environment Information and Reproduction Steps merely add tokens without measurable benefit; iii) linguistic style has only small, model-dependent effects. These findings provide actionable guidance for users and agents: explicitly stating the desired behavior and motivation, which most real prompts omit, substantially improves the LLM's software engineering performance.</summary>
    <category term="cs.AI" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <category term="cs.LG" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <category term="cs.SE" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <published>2026-08-28T01:57:58Z</published>
    <arxiv:primary_category term="cs.AI"/>
    <author>
      <name>Gyuhyeong Kim</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Hyojung Gwon</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Jeonghyeon Kim</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Kyuhong Shim</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Sunjae Lee</name>
    </author>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2512.16956v3</id>
    <title>SpIDER: Spatially Informed Dense Embedding Retrieval for Software Issue Localization</title>
    <updated>2026-08-31T09:53:31Z</updated>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.16956v3" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2512.16956v3" rel="related" type="application/pdf" title="pdf"/>
    <summary>Retrieving code functions, classes or files relevant to a user query, bug report or feature request from large codebases is a fundamental challenge for Large Language Model (LLM)-based coding agents. Agentic approaches typically employ sparse methods like BM25 or dense embedding strategies to identify semantically relevant units. While dense embedding approaches can outperform BM25 by large margins, both ignore the graph-structured characteristics of the codebase. To address this, we propose SpIDER (Spatially Informed Dense Embedding Retrieval), a dense retrieval approach that integrates LLM-based reasoning with graph-based exploration of the codebase. We further introduce SpIDER-Bench, a graph-structured benchmark curated from SWEPolyBench, SWEBench-Verified and Multi-SWE-bench, spanning Python, Java, JavaScript and TypeScript repositories. SpIDER's graph-based candidate expansion attaches a structural reason for inclusion to each surfaced function (its seed and the edge type linking them), making the candidate set auditable while keeping the retrieval budget fixed. The graph is built from per-repository syntax trees, so it can be constructed on-demand at the start of a developer session rather than precomputed offline. Empirical results show that SpIDER consistently improves dense retrieval Recall@20 across every language and benchmark in SpIDER-Bench: by at least 13% relative (+0.05 to +0.12 absolute) along containment edges, rising to at least 27% relative (+0.11 to +0.19 absolute) once call edges are explored.</summary>
    <category term="cs.SE" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <category term="cs.LG" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <published>2025-12-18T01:32:25Z</published>
    <arxiv:comment>EMNLP 2026 camera-ready</arxiv:comment>
    <arxiv:primary_category term="cs.SE"/>
    <author>
      <name>Shravan Chaudhari</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Rahul Thomas Jacob</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Jiajun Cao</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Shihab Rashid</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Mononito Goswami</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Christian Bock</name>
    </author>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.15071v2</id>
    <title>Evo-Harness: Context-to-Harness Skill Compilation for Self-Evolving Agents</title>
    <updated>2026-08-30T19:47:36Z</updated>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.15071v2" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2608.15071v2" rel="related" type="application/pdf" title="pdf"/>
    <summary>Learning from experience is critical for developing capable, self-improving large language model (LLM) agents. Existing methods typically extract knowledge from accumulated trajectories via reflection, memory, rules, or skills. However, agents in realistic environments continuously encounter novel tasks, often offering only a one-shot opportunity to improve. These executions yield rich but highly noisy contexts, entangling broadly useful lessons with task-specific artifacts. Critically, prior works rarely validate their effectiveness on complex real-world tasks or isolate the underlying drivers of improvement. To address these gaps, we formulate online harness learning, where a frozen agent improves by continually updating a structured harness across sequential tasks. This formulation enables a systematic study of key self-improvement factors through our proposed Evo-Harness. At its core, context-to-harness skill compilation distills noisy, single-shot executions into reusable skill harnesses for cross-domain and topic-level adaptation. To demonstrate the efficacy of one-shot skill compilation, we evaluate across five realistic benchmarks (TerminalBench2, SWE-bench, CL-Bench, -bench, WebArena-Infinity). Our extensive analysis demonstrates the effectiveness of Evo-Harness and provides a principled understanding of how LLM agents can effectively learn on the fly. Our code is available at https://github.com/A-EVO-Lab/a-evolve/tree/release/evo-harness.</summary>
    <category term="cs.AI" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <category term="cs.CL" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <published>2026-08-15T06:43:56Z</published>
    <arxiv:comment>EMNLP 2026 Main</arxiv:comment>
    <arxiv:primary_category term="cs.AI"/>
    <author>
      <name>Tianxin Wei</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Zhan Shi</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Minhua Lin</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Bing He</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Zewen Liu</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Yisi Sang</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Yuanchen Bei</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Xuying Ning</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Jiaru Zou</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Ting-Wei Li</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Xiao Lin</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Yanjun Zhao</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Chi Wang</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Benoit Dumoulin</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Dakuo Wang</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Jingrui He</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Hanqing Lu</name>
    </author>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.29831v1</id>
    <title>A^2Agent: Action-Aware Reinforcement Learning for Repository-Level Code Localization Agents</title>
    <updated>2026-08-30T14:53:35Z</updated>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.29831v1" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2608.29831v1" rel="related" type="application/pdf" title="pdf"/>
    <summary>Localizing issue-relevant code regions is a critical step in automated software engineering. However, due to their reliance on sparse trajectory-level signals, existing methods cannot identify which per-turn actions are effective and often discover correct code regions during exploration but fail to commit them. To address these limitations, we propose an action-aware reinforcement learning method that combines a per-turn reward sequence rewarding both the discovery and commitment of gold code regions with an action-level advantage estimation scheme that isolates each action's credit by grouping turns sharing the same exploration context. Extensive evaluations show that our method improves the average F1 over the state-of-the-art (SOTA) by 1.58% on SWE-Bench Verified and 8.55% on SWE-Bench Pro, with our 4B model outperforming baselines up to 8x larger. Our code is available at https://github.com/donian00/A2Agent.</summary>
    <category term="cs.CL" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <category term="cs.SE" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <published>2026-08-30T14:53:35Z</published>
    <arxiv:comment>Accepted to EMNLP 2026 Main</arxiv:comment>
    <arxiv:primary_category term="cs.CL"/>
    <author>
      <name>Doyeon Kim</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Suyoung Bae</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Yumin Lee</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Jee-Hyong Lee</name>
    </author>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.29675v1</id>
    <title>Cost-Effective Repository Exploration for Agentic Issue Localization</title>
    <updated>2026-08-30T09:16:33Z</updated>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.29675v1" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2608.29675v1" rel="related" type="application/pdf" title="pdf"/>
    <summary>Repository exploration is a distinct and costly stage of coding-agent pipelines: before generating a patch, an agent must identify which repository files are likely to matter. We study whether this stage can be delegated to lower-cost models while retaining useful localization quality. Using our IssueLoc-Bench, we evaluate five explorer models under the same read-only interactive interface on 499 SWE-bench Verified-derived tasks and 500 tasks from 153 additional repositories. We measure early candidate discovery, top-three gold-file coverage, strict file-set recovery, agent time, and token usage, with paired instance-level uncertainty and repository-clustered sensitivity analysis. The highest-quality explorer leads across localization metrics, but substantially cheaper operating points emerge: depending on the model and evaluation arm, lower-cost explorers retain approximately 78-94% of the reference Hit@3 and 73-92% of its F1 while reducing mean agent time by 41-88% and token usage by 84-95%. The preferred operating point depends on how localization is consumed downstream: ranking and coverage metrics characterize recoverable candidate handoffs, whereas F1 and exact match characterize restrictive file gates. These results support treating repository exploration as an independently measurable and budgetable stage of modular coding agents, with explorer selection guided by the downstream handoff contract.</summary>
    <category term="cs.SE" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <category term="cs.AI" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <published>2026-08-30T09:16:33Z</published>
    <arxiv:primary_category term="cs.SE"/>
    <author>
      <name>Mohammad Nour Al Awad</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Sergey Ivanov</name>
    </author>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2506.08311v3</id>
    <title>Understanding Automated Program Repair Agents Through the Lens of Traceability: An Empirical Study</title>
    <updated>2026-08-29T21:15:34Z</updated>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.08311v3" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2506.08311v3" rel="related" type="application/pdf" title="pdf"/>
    <summary>Automated Program Repair (APR) agents leverage large language models (LLMs) to autonomously diagnose and patch software bugs using planning, reasoning, and tools. Although these agents show strong performance on leaderboards such as SWE-bench, little is understood about how they take actions, where they fail, and how their behavior compares to human developers. In this paper, we present the first systematic analysis of these limitations using 5 state-of-the-art APR agents. We trace the full decision-making pipelines of the 5 APR agents across 500 real-world repair tasks, from issue description to patch validation. Our study reveals that, while agents excel at simple fixes, they struggle with logic-intensive bugs, often generating verbose, overfitted patches that pass existing test suites without solving the root cause. Test generation and regression test selection remain major bottlenecks, as agents fail to reproduce issues or run relevant regression tests. Moreover, many agents operate with primitive tooling (e.g. bash scripts) and do not have access to debuggers or program analysis tools. These findings highlight key limitations of current APR systems and motivate several directions for next-generation APR design, including but not limited to: (1) a shift-left approach emphasizing early, high-quality test generation and validation to reduce spurious fixes and improve semantic correctness; (2) richer, more integrated tool ecosystems; (3) diversified agent architectures that combine complementary strengths; and (4) benchmarks that prioritize semantic repair quality and test-generation fidelity over surface-level success metrics.</summary>
    <category term="cs.SE" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <category term="cs.AI" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <published>2025-06-10T00:41:54Z</published>
    <arxiv:comment>Accepted for publication (ISSTA '26). Camera ready</arxiv:comment>
    <arxiv:primary_category term="cs.SE"/>
    <author>
      <name>Ira Ceka</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Hailie Mitchell</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Saurabh Pujar</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Luca Buratti</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Shyam Ramji</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Junfeng Yang</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Gail Kaiser</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Baishakhi Ray</name>
    </author>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.05922v3</id>
    <title>Evolving Agents in the Dark: Retrospective Harness Optimization via Self-Preference</title>
    <updated>2026-08-29T06:46:46Z</updated>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.05922v3" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2606.05922v3" rel="related" type="application/pdf" title="pdf"/>
    <summary>AI agents rely on a harness of skills, tools, and workflows to solve complex problems. Continually improving this harness is essential for adapting to new tasks. However, existing optimization methods typically require ground-truth validation sets, yet such labeled data is difficult to acquire in practical deployment settings. To address this problem, we introduce Retrospective Harness Optimization (RHO), a self-supervised method that optimizes the agent harness using only past trajectories. Specifically, RHO selects a diverse coreset of challenging tasks from past trajectories and re-solves them in parallel. The agent analyzes these rollouts using self-validation and self-consistency, then generates candidate harness updates and selects the most effective one by its own pairwise self-preference. We evaluate RHO across three diverse domains, spanning software engineering, technical work, and knowledge work. Notably, a single optimization round improves the pass rate on SWE-Bench Pro from 59% to 78% without any external grading. Furthermore, our analysis demonstrates that RHO effectively targets prior failure modes. As a result, the optimized harness alters the agent's behavior patterns and sustains higher accuracy during long-horizon sessions.</summary>
    <category term="cs.AI" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <category term="cs.CL" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <category term="cs.LG" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <published>2026-06-04T09:26:00Z</published>
    <arxiv:comment>Accepted to EMNLP 2026 (Findings). Code: https://github.com/wbopan/retro-harness ; Project website: https://paper-rho.wenbo.io</arxiv:comment>
    <arxiv:primary_category term="cs.AI"/>
    <author>
      <name>Wenbo Pan</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Shujie Liu</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Chin-Yew Lin</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Jingying Zeng</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Xianfeng Tang</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Xiangyang Zhou</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Yan Lu</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Xiaohua Jia</name>
    </author>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.28158v1</id>
    <title>HARTS: Efficient Agentic Reinforcement Learning for Hybrid-Attention Models over Arbitrary Rollout Trees</title>
    <updated>2026-08-28T10:18:54Z</updated>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.28158v1" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2608.28158v1" rel="related" type="application/pdf" title="pdf"/>
    <summary>Agentic reinforcement learning (RL) often produces irregular rollout trees with shared histories. Training root-to-leaf trajectories independently recomputes these shared prefixes. Existing systems primarily target full-attention models and lack dense, differentiable hybrid-attention execution compatible with activation recomputation. We present HARTS (Hybrid-Attention RL over Tree Structures). HARTS jointly plans microbatches, data-parallel (DP) replica assignments, and microbatch-slot schedules using non-replay compact-token work after prefix compression. For chunkwise linear attention, a linear-time algorithm coordinates chunk-boundary state recovery and replay and produces the minimum number of sequential linear-attention calls under our packed execution model. HARTS preserves the chunkwise state partitioning of trajectory-wise training: it does not repeat projections, MLP/MoE computation, or final outputs, and performs only bounded state replay for numerical alignment. Per round, HARTS batches all branches into one packed call, propagates gradients through differentiable state handoffs, supports activation recomputation, and restores per-token log-probabilities. For deterministic, no-token-drop top-$k$ MoE routing, semantic multiplicities restore MoE-objective token weights and load statistics. Existing RL objectives retain their interface. To our knowledge, HARTS is the first system to demonstrate arbitrary-rollout-tree prefix-sharing speedups on a real hybrid-attention model. On an Agentic RL workload generated from SWE-bench tasks, HARTS achieves $4.81$--$4.87\times$ forward/backward/gradient speedup with activation recomputation across multiple parallel configurations. Its numerical differences are comparable to baseline self-rerun variation, and its reward trend is similar to the baseline over the first 120 steps of $τ^3$-Bench training.</summary>
    <category term="cs.LG" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <category term="cs.DC" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <published>2026-08-28T10:18:54Z</published>
    <arxiv:primary_category term="cs.LG"/>
    <author>
      <name>Boyuan Meng</name>
      <arxiv:affiliation>Ant Group, China</arxiv:affiliation>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Peihua Bao</name>
      <arxiv:affiliation>Ant Group, China</arxiv:affiliation>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Hong Liu</name>
      <arxiv:affiliation>Ant Group, China</arxiv:affiliation>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Xiaowei Zhu</name>
      <arxiv:affiliation>Ant Group, China</arxiv:affiliation>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Chao Wang</name>
      <arxiv:affiliation>Ant Group, China</arxiv:affiliation>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Gen Li</name>
      <arxiv:affiliation>Ant Group, China</arxiv:affiliation>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Zhenxuan Pan</name>
      <arxiv:affiliation>Ant Group, China</arxiv:affiliation>
    </author>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.27969v1</id>
    <title>openJiuwen: Beyond Static Harnesses for Long-Horizon Coding Agents</title>
    <updated>2026-08-28T06:31:38Z</updated>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.27969v1" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2608.27969v1" rel="related" type="application/pdf" title="pdf"/>
    <summary>Long-horizon coding agents operate over evolving repository states while increasingly relying on heterogeneous capabilities, delegated agents, and multi-agent coordination. These trends pose two complementary challenges for the agent harness. First, developers need to compose capabilities, reconfigure execution logic, and scale increasingly complex agent systems without repeatedly rebuilding orchestration. Second, complex coding tasks continuously produce new evidence---such as semantic diagnostics, execution outcomes, task progress, and changing context relevance---that should dynamically influence subsequent runtime decisions. We characterize these challenges as Structural Composability and Runtime Adaptivity. We present openJiuwen, an open-source harness designed for both developer composability and adaptive task execution. openJiuwen provides a shared execution substrate and Rail-based capability composition across single agents, delegated sub-agents, and Swarm Flow, enabling developers to construct sophisticated agent harnesses under common execution semantics. It further adapts framework-controlled runtime decisions around a fixed model policy, allowing evolving evidence to dynamically affect context, feedback, and task control toward successful completion. We systematically evaluate openJiuwen on SWE-bench Verified and Terminal-Bench 2.1, where it achieves 82.6% and 87.19%, respectively, exceeding the strongest selected official-leaderboard point estimates by 3.4 and 3.39 percentage points. These results show that openJiuwen achieves strong performance on complex coding tasks while providing a composable and adaptive harness design.</summary>
    <category term="cs.AI" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <published>2026-08-28T06:31:38Z</published>
    <arxiv:primary_category term="cs.AI"/>
    <author>
      <name> openJiuwen Team</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Tao Yu</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Xinyu Zhang</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Qianqian Chen</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Xiaoneng Xiang</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Chia Kwangyang</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Xingchen Huang</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Ran Chen</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Yangkai Ding</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Zheng Wang</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Yeo Boon Hong</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Bingzheng Gan</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Enrui Hu</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Shuo Cheng</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Deyang Li</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Ruifeng Shi</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Hongbo Wang</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Qi Ye</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Xuefeng Jin</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Zhangchun Zhao</name>
    </author>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.27451v1</id>
    <title>Tacet: A Language and Type System for Automatic Statistical Validity Accounting</title>
    <updated>2026-08-27T17:59:01Z</updated>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.27451v1" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2608.27451v1" rel="related" type="application/pdf" title="pdf"/>
    <summary>Empirical comparisons between systems are a standard form of evidence in computer science research, but few are checked for statistical validity: most are never framed as statistical tests at all. Existing multiple-comparison procedures could control the resulting error, but need inputs (what an analysis examined, and how its observations are arranged) that are not recoverable from a list of p-values.
  We introduce Tacet, a language in which an analysis declares what it generated, states what it expects to find, and is refused any claim it cannot afford or cannot properly test. Its core calculus T pairs a free estimation sublanguage, carrying a reported footprint and a purity bit that records whether any outcome was consulted in building a value, with a priced claim sublanguage, carrying a wealth transformer, connected only by a mechanism that prices a comparison. A sample selected by reading outcomes sets the purity bit and is recorded as having examined everything it read, permanently, so it can never be granted a one-sided or confirmatory price, without the system ever asking whether the analyst intended to cherry-pick. Whether a comparison is paired or clustered is computed statically from the artifact schema, from declared functional dependencies between key fields alone and before any data is read, and a mechanism that assumes that structure away is refused rather than priced. Because the wealth transformer is antitone in the realized p-value, affordability can be checked before the analysis runs too, turning pre-registration into a typing rule. We prove the metatheory machine-checked in Lean 4 with no admitted gaps, and demonstrate the approach on a reference implementation and two case studies on published artifacts, the SWE-bench Verified leaderboard and BIG-Bench Hard.</summary>
    <category term="cs.PL" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <category term="cs.SE" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <published>2026-08-27T17:59:01Z</published>
    <arxiv:comment>67 pages, 2 figures, 10 tables, including 10 appendices. Lean 4 mechanization: https://github.com/abuach/tacet-mech ; reference implementation and case-study replication code: https://github.com/abuach/tacet-python</arxiv:comment>
    <arxiv:primary_category term="cs.PL"/>
    <author>
      <name>Chiké Abuah</name>
    </author>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.27449v1</id>
    <title>SWE-Prime: Fewer Trajectories, Better Performance</title>
    <updated>2026-08-27T17:58:10Z</updated>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.27449v1" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2608.27449v1" rel="related" type="application/pdf" title="pdf"/>
    <summary>To improve large language models' ability to resolve real-world software issues, prior work has focused on constructing large-scale agent trajectory datasets and performing supervised fine-tuning (SFT) on successful trajectories. However, task success does not guarantee high-quality supervision: successful trajectories may still contain ineffective, redundant, or risky steps. Directly using such trajectories for SFT can introduce noisy supervision and encourage models to imitate undesirable problem-solving behaviors. Therefore, we propose SWE-Prime, a multi-granularity, two-stage SFT data selection method that progressively filters training data at the trajectory and segment levels. Specifically, the first stage performs trajectory-level screening based on process quality, result quality, and data representativeness, selecting a high-quality and representative subset of successful trajectories. The second stage performs segment-level selection by grouping consecutive steps into semantic segments and assessing each segment based on its contribution to the final solution, learnability, and potential risks. During SFT, all segments remain in the sequence to preserve context, while only selected segments contribute to the loss computation. Experiments on SWE-Bench Pro and SWE-Bench Verified show that training on the 10% trajectory subset selected by SWE-Prime outperforms training on the full resolved dataset, yielding relative performance gains of up to 12.2% and 24.2%, respectively.</summary>
    <category term="cs.SE" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <category term="cs.AI" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <category term="cs.CL" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <published>2026-08-27T17:58:10Z</published>
    <arxiv:comment>9 pages, 5 figures</arxiv:comment>
    <arxiv:primary_category term="cs.SE"/>
    <author>
      <name>Dewu Zheng</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Ruizhe Ye</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Yanlin Wang</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Yang Ye</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Hongyu Zhang</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Ensheng Shi</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Xilin Liu</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Yuchi Ma</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Jianxing Yu</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Zibin Zheng</name>
    </author>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.26602v1</id>
    <title>The Thousand-Graph Hypothesis: A Testable Hypothesis of Task-Conditioned Relation Materialization in Repository-Level Code Reasoning</title>
    <updated>2026-08-27T04:33:48Z</updated>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.26602v1" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2608.26602v1" rel="related" type="application/pdf" title="pdf"/>
    <summary>Large software repositories are often beyond model context limits. Training repository knowledge into models is costly and quickly stale, while local retrieval can miss scattered requirements, and explicit relation graphs add ongoing maintenance burden. We propose an entity-only external interface with task-conditioned relation materialization during inference. A two-layer index separates global routing from local entity focus and is evaluated on DeepSeek-V4-Flash and SWE-bench Verified. The base, one-layer, and two-layer conditions achieve 92.1%, 94.2%, and 95.6% success, respectively, under zero pre-built entity-relation edges.</summary>
    <category term="cs.SE" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <category term="cs.CL" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <published>2026-08-27T04:33:48Z</published>
    <arxiv:comment>9 pages, 2 figures,</arxiv:comment>
    <arxiv:primary_category term="cs.SE"/>
    <author>
      <name>Fei Ding</name>
    </author>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.25776v1</id>
    <title>EVOMAL: Self-Poisoning in Self-Evolving Coding Agents</title>
    <updated>2026-08-26T13:19:12Z</updated>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.25776v1" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2608.25776v1" rel="related" type="application/pdf" title="pdf"/>
    <summary>Self-evolving LLM coding agents write their own tools by imitating retrieved skills from shared skill libraries. We identify a vulnerability in this loop: during authoring, a retrieved malicious skill can become the template for a new skill that preserves the payload. We call this self-poisoning: the agent authors, stores, and runs the resulting malicious skill. We exploit it through EvoMal, an attack that amplifies self-poisoning by wrapping an interchangeable payload in a banner, a set of benign-looking structural elements that induces an imitating agent to reproduce the enclosed code. The attacker plants malicious skills in the library without invoking them. The agent then authors and executes new skills carrying the harmful code. Each authored copy can re-enter the library and be imitated again, forming a self-propagating worm that persists after the planted skills are removed. We define the agent self-poisoning rate (ASPR) as the fraction of tasks that add a newly authored malicious skill to the library. Across six models on 153 tool-relevant SWE-bench Verified tasks, ASPR ranges from 20.3% to 41.8%, and the poisoned libraries hold 4.9 to 9.0 times as many malicious skills as were planted. The vulnerability also appears without a banner: DeepSeek-V4-Pro reaches 11.1% ASPR with the payload alone. Tailoring the planted skill descriptions to one task family raises ASPR to 86.7%. After the planted skills are removed, Qwen3 retains a round-5 ASPR of 68% because agent-authored copies remain. These copies evade existing defenses, which focus on attacker-submitted names, code, and signatures. We propose counter-prompt, a defense that discourages banner-style copying and reduces EvoMal's ASPR to at most 6.7% with no significant task-completion loss.</summary>
    <category term="cs.CR" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <category term="cs.AI" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <published>2026-08-26T13:19:12Z</published>
    <arxiv:primary_category term="cs.CR"/>
    <author>
      <name>Xiaodong Wu</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Yu Shi</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Qi Li</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Zhimin Zhao</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Xiangman Li</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Bram Adams</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Ahmed E. Hassan</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Jianbing Ni</name>
    </author>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.26218v1</id>
    <title>Same Model, Different Harness: Different Coding-Agent Results</title>
    <updated>2026-08-26T11:55:44Z</updated>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.26218v1" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2608.26218v1" rel="related" type="application/pdf" title="pdf"/>
    <summary>A coding agent combines a model with a harness, which decides what the model sees, which tools it can use, and how the work continues. We ask whether changing the harness changes the result when the model and task stay fixed. We compare two configurations of the same harness on three coding benchmarks. The control supplies the full conversation in time order, while the treatment keeps the same record but mechanically shortens older tool results as the context fills and responds to repeated or stalled work.
  Under tight context, the treatment raises mean per-task fail-to-pass fraction (F2PF) in all three pressure comparisons and increases complete solutions on SWE-bench Verified and SWE-bench Pro. The tight-window Verified comparison uses 169 tasks, a 20,480-token window, and a fixed 480-second attempt endpoint; on this cohort, treatment raises mean per-task F2PF from 28 percent to 49 percent and complete solutions from 43 to 72. Without model-specific retuning, the same frozen treatment also raises both endpoints on the same cohort for three additional models with different designs. In the wide-window Qwen3.6 comparisons, observed arm outcomes are close on Verified and Pro, while FeatureBench retains a higher mean per-task F2PF under treatment. On the wide-window Verified cohort, treatment also serves fewer prompt tokens per turn. Because changing the harness changed what unchanged model weights could accomplish, coding-agent evaluations should treat the model and harness together as the tested solver.</summary>
    <category term="cs.AI" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <category term="cs.SE" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <published>2026-08-26T11:55:44Z</published>
    <arxiv:comment>24 pages, 9 figures. Software and study artifacts: https://github.com/sydches/yuj</arxiv:comment>
    <arxiv:primary_category term="cs.AI"/>
    <author>
      <name>Sydney Lewis</name>
    </author>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2510.22775v2</id>
    <title>Scalable Supervision for Software Agents via Patch Reasoning</title>
    <updated>2026-08-26T11:43:27Z</updated>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.22775v2" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2510.22775v2" rel="related" type="application/pdf" title="pdf"/>
    <summary>While language model agents have advanced software engineering, existing test-based supervision is limiting its scalability on real-world issues. The reason is twofold: (1) high-coverage tests are naturally rare in the wild, and (2) building and running test sandbox is heavy and fragile. To unlock supervision scaling, we propose R4P, a reasoning-based method that provides scaffold-agnostic rewards. R4P uses a group-wise training objective, enabling it to verify multiple patches against each other's modification and gain a dense reward for supervising agents without executing tests or relying on specific agent trajectories. R4P achieves 72.2% Acc. for verifying patches from SWE-bench, competitive with proprietary models. To show the downstream practical utility of R4P, we design and train an execution-free scaffold, Mini-SE, with pure RL via R4P. Mini-SE achieves 26.2% Pass@1, showing a 10.0% improvement over the original Qwen3-32B, and can be further improved to 32.8% with R4P for test-time scaling on patch selection. The stable scaling curves illustrate that though imperfect, R4P can still reliably support downstream tasks at scale.</summary>
    <category term="cs.CL" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <category term="cs.SE" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <published>2025-10-26T17:52:05Z</published>
    <arxiv:comment>EMNLP'26 Findings</arxiv:comment>
    <arxiv:primary_category term="cs.CL"/>
    <author>
      <name>Junjielong Xu</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Boyin Tan</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Xiaoyuan Liu</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Chao Peng</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Pengfei Gao</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Pinjia He</name>
    </author>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.27487v1</id>
    <title>Grounded Checklist Partial Credit for Agent Skill Trajectories</title>
    <updated>2026-08-26T06:17:19Z</updated>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.27487v1" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2608.27487v1" rel="related" type="application/pdf" title="pdf"/>
    <summary>Language-model agents increasingly tackle long-horizon tasks in interactive environments, yet their evaluation commonly relies on task-level success rates by reducing an entire execution trajectory to whether the task passes an official verifier. This binary score hides partial progress and is particularly limited for procedural agent skill evaluations, since a skill can alter execution without changing the final outcome. While checklists provide finer-grained evaluation by scoring individual task requirements, costly manual authoring and unreliable automatic generation make trustworthy evaluation difficult to scale. To address these challenges, we introduce Grounded Checklist Partial Credit (GCPC), a human-governed and LLM-instantiated partial-credit evaluation of agent trajectories. Humans define reusable rules once, from which an LLM instantiates a task-specific checklist grounded in the task instruction and official verifier. To keep judgment tied to evidence, a judge scores each item from execution log evidence alone and abstains when evidence is missing. A separate scripted step then applies the official verifier outcome to the score. Across a 4,455-trajectory, deduplicated SkillsBench evaluation population, GCPC better discriminates official PASS and FAIL outcomes than holistic judging on the shared subset (AUC 0.689 vs. 0.619). Human evaluation on 96 trajectories from 12 tasks shows that GCPC aligns more closely with human assessments of progress. Applied to 1,946 matched with/without-skill pairs, GCPC exposes the effects hidden by pass@1: among 879 pairs whose binary outcome does not change, 20.9% improve by more than 0.10 while 18.7% regress by the same margin. The GCPC pipeline also transfers to Terminal-Bench and SWE-bench, demonstrating applicability beyond skill-conditioned evaluation.</summary>
    <category term="cs.SE" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <published>2026-08-26T06:17:19Z</published>
    <arxiv:primary_category term="cs.SE"/>
    <author>
      <name>Suliu Qin</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Lu Yin</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Xilu Wang</name>
    </author>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.24188v1</id>
    <title>Paritok-4B: Intent-Conditioned Context Compression for Coding Agents</title>
    <updated>2026-08-25T07:53:30Z</updated>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.24188v1" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2608.24188v1" rel="related" type="application/pdf" title="pdf"/>
    <summary>Coding agents re-send large file reads and tool outputs to a frontier LLM every turn, and this context dominates their token bill. General-purpose prompt compressors are trained on prose and suit code poorly: they paraphrase identifiers and drop the exact spans an agent needs to edit. We present Paritok-4B, a 4B LoRA compressor for coding-agent trajectories built on two commitments. It is extractive: it selects spans rather than rewriting them, and 96.0% of the identifiers, paths, and numbers it emits already appear in its input, holding at 96.2% on held-out SWE-bench Lite output. It is intent-conditioned: told the agent's current task, it acts chiefly inside a retained segment, selecting which lines survive (retained lines are +0.067 more intent-relevant than removed ones, paired 95% CI [+0.056, +0.078]) rather than changing how much is retained. We distil a gpt-4.1-mini teacher over 67,074 real OpenHands trajectories into 40,606 validated examples and fine-tune Qwen3-4B. On all 300 SWE-bench Lite instances, Paritok-4B compresses agent context to 25.7% of its size, 2.0x harder than a gpt-4.1-mini compressor (50.2%) and 2.4x harder than gpt-5 (61.9%), while retaining 86.5% of uncompressed single-shot solve quality. Fed the cat -n line-numbered input real agents produce, it compresses slightly less (27.8%) and retains more (89.3%); there the paired test is informative, with 30 instances solved only uncompressed and 17 only compressed, an exact McNemar p=0.079, so at this sample size compressing context to roughly a quarter of its size does not significantly reduce the solve rate. The model is a 264 MB adapter that self-hosts on one 24 GB GPU with no per-token compressor fee, which at list prices decides the economics: gpt-5 as a compressor is net-negative, costing more than the downstream tokens it saves. Weights, data, and evaluation scripts are open (Apache 2.0).</summary>
    <category term="cs.AI" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <category term="cs.CL" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <category term="cs.LG" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <category term="cs.SE" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <published>2026-08-25T07:53:30Z</published>
    <arxiv:comment>20 pages, 1 figure, 10 tables</arxiv:comment>
    <arxiv:primary_category term="cs.AI"/>
    <author>
      <name>Jiayu Shi</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Luzhuo Chen</name>
    </author>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.23493v1</id>
    <title>SRPO: Self-Reflective Policy Optimization for Long-Horizon Reasoning</title>
    <updated>2026-08-24T16:55:09Z</updated>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.23493v1" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2608.23493v1" rel="related" type="application/pdf" title="pdf"/>
    <summary>Self-reflection is a powerful mechanism for credit assignment in human learning, converting sparse outcome feedback into actionable guidance. However, its potential for post-training Large Language Models (LLMs) remains underexplored. We propose Self-Reflective Policy Optimization (SRPO), a framework that internalizes this capability. SRPO enables LLMs to analyze their own completed trajectories, synthesize errors into concise "reflection patches," and use reflection-conditioned teacher scores on student on-policy rollouts as dense token-level training signals. This process effectively transforms sparse terminal supervision into dense, token-level learning signals without requiring external critics, separate reward models, or larger teacher models. We demonstrate that SRPO achieves state-of-the-art performance across mathematical reasoning and long-horizon agentic benchmarks with exceptional data efficiency. Using a Qwen3-8B base model, SRPO attains 73.3% on AIME'24 using only 8% (0.08x) of the training FLOPs required by scaled supervised fine-tuning, while significantly improving success rates on WebShop (64.7%), ALFWorld (76.8%), and SWE-Bench-Lite (31.2%). Code is available at https://github.com/Galleons2029/SRPO</summary>
    <category term="cs.AI" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <published>2026-08-24T16:55:09Z</published>
    <arxiv:comment>Accepted to ICML 2026</arxiv:comment>
    <arxiv:primary_category term="cs.AI"/>
    <author>
      <name>Jialong Liu</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Yuling Shi</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Ning Yang</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Xiaodong Gu</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Zuchao Li</name>
    </author>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.23041v1</id>
    <title>AutoSaddler: Automatic Harness Optimization with Durable Updates from Agent Execution Traces</title>
    <updated>2026-08-24T09:45:08Z</updated>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.23041v1" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2608.23041v1" rel="related" type="application/pdf" title="pdf"/>
    <summary>LLM agents remain unreliable on long-horizon tasks, where small local failures can compound over extended interactions and lead to overall task failure. Although external harnesses can substantially improve robustness, harness design remains a manual and expensive process that requires searching over a large space of prompts, tool configurations, and control logic. We propose AutoSaddler, an automatic harness optimization framework that formulates harness improvement as an offline learning problem and iteratively updates the harness using failure signals from mini-batches. AutoSaddler combines failure-trace diagnosis, structured patch generation that treats the harness as code, and validation-based update selection. Experiments on GAIA2, SWE-Bench Pro, and Terminal-Bench 2.0 show that AutoSaddler substantially improves agent performance over the corresponding base harnesses, achieving gains of 9.0, 9.6, and 10.0 percentage points, respectively. Ablation studies further suggest that effective harness optimization benefits from three ingredients: deep debugging rather than shallow reflection, targeted modifications rather than unconstrained editing, and generalization-aware selection rather than trajectory-specific repair. Together, these results suggest that automatic harness optimization is a promising path toward more performant and reliable agent systems.</summary>
    <category term="cs.AI" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <category term="cs.CL" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <category term="cs.LG" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <category term="cs.MA" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <category term="cs.SE" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <published>2026-08-24T09:45:08Z</published>
    <arxiv:comment>44 pages, 15 figures. Project website and code: https://aka.ms/AutoSaddler-website</arxiv:comment>
    <arxiv:primary_category term="cs.AI"/>
    <author>
      <name>Sungho Park</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Wonjoong Kim</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Rongyuan Tan</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Jue Zhang</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Wook-Shin Han</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Pengfei Gao</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Chanyoung Park</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Yongqiang Yao</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Rao Fu</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Elsie Nallipogu</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Qingwei Lin</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Saravan Rajmohan</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Dongmei Zhang</name>
    </author>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.11864v3</id>
    <title>CORE-Bench: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Code Retrieval in the Era of Agentic Coding</title>
    <updated>2026-08-24T07:53:30Z</updated>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.11864v3" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2606.11864v3" rel="related" type="application/pdf" title="pdf"/>
    <summary>Code retrieval is becoming central to coding agents, but agentic coding requires more than matching a natural-language query to an isolated snippet. Given a user request, a coding agent needs to navigate a concrete repository state, locate relevant files and functions, gather supporting context, and filter similar in-repository distractors. Existing code retrieval benchmarks mainly evaluate docstring-to-function or snippet-level matching, thereby missing this requirement-driven repository search problem. To address this gap, we introduce CORE-Bench, a comprehensive benchmark for code retrieval in the era of agentic coding. CORE-Bench evaluates code retrieval ability at three levels: code understanding, issue-to-edit localization, and broader context retrieval. Built from curated code-search tasks and SWE-bench-series instances, CORE-Bench contains over 180K queries and 106K broader-context relevance labels. Experiments with representative embedding models show a sharp drop from traditional code search to code retrieval in agentic coding settings. Simple supervised fine-tuning of existing embedding models significantly improves performance in this setting, suggesting substantial room for further progress.</summary>
    <category term="cs.IR" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <published>2026-06-10T09:38:41Z</published>
    <arxiv:comment>Accepted By EMNLP 2026 Main</arxiv:comment>
    <arxiv:primary_category term="cs.IR"/>
    <author>
      <name>Fuwei Zhang</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Yanzhao Zhang</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Mingxin Li</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Dingkun Long</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Lexiang Hu</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Pengjun Xie</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Zhao Zhang</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Fuzhen Zhuang</name>
    </author>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2511.02208v2</id>
    <title>Training Proactive and Personalized LLM Agents</title>
    <updated>2026-08-23T07:17:53Z</updated>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.02208v2" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2511.02208v2" rel="related" type="application/pdf" title="pdf"/>
    <summary>Despite rapid progress, current AI agents are primarily optimized for isolated task completion. We argue for a paradigm shift toward training agents as collaborators that communicate and adapt to people. To facilitate this shift in real-world complex applications, we first formalize three dimensions of collaborative AI agents: Productivity, Proactivity, and Personalization (PPP). We introduce UserVille, an interactive environment with configurable LLM-based user simulators and user-centric feedback to evaluate these dimensions, and propose a multi-objective reinforcement learning framework that optimizes them using rewards from task outcomes, question effort, and preference adherence. On two real-world agentic tasks (SWE-Bench and BrowseComp-Plus), PPP-trained agents outperform strong LLM baselines (including GPT-5) by an average of 16.7 points, ask more targeted questions, and generalize to unseen preferences and tasks. A follow-up user study further highlights the importance of user-centric feedback for training collaborative agents that are both more effective and easier to supervise.</summary>
    <category term="cs.AI" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <category term="cs.CL" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <category term="cs.LG" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <published>2025-11-04T02:59:36Z</published>
    <arxiv:comment>COLM 2026</arxiv:comment>
    <arxiv:primary_category term="cs.AI"/>
    <author>
      <name>Weiwei Sun</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Xuhui Zhou</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Weihua Du</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Xingyao Wang</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Sean Welleck</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Graham Neubig</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Maarten Sap</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Yiming Yang</name>
    </author>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.22191v1</id>
    <title>Disagree to Explore, Agree to Commit: Routing-Guided Test-Time Scaling for Software Agents</title>
    <updated>2026-08-23T03:07:03Z</updated>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.22191v1" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2608.22191v1" rel="related" type="application/pdf" title="pdf"/>
    <summary>Software-engineering agents solve repository-level tasks through long, stochastic tool-use trajectories, and repeated attempts often find fixes missed by one run. Test-time scaling is difficult because patches lack canonical answer forms, while sibling actions from a shared prefix are correlated. We study whether native MoE router traces can guide steering and selection without an external judge or selection-time test execution. Our analysis shows that routing provides a robust behavioral role signal; token-granular readouts and decision-matched comparison sets turn it into effective control. We therefore introduce Risa (Routing-Informed Steering and Arbitration): within trajectories, routing encourages diverse exploration and controlled convergence during patch commitment; across separately sampled trajectories, agreement at informative patch positions selects a final candidate. We evaluate on SWE-bench Verified using open-weight sparse MoE agents across scales and reasoning-effort settings. Risa's routing arbitration raises the macro-average resolved rate from 44.9% under uniform sampling to 48.2% on the gpt-oss family, matching text consensus without answer-string matching, and it transfers to Qwen3.6, where it improves on uniform choice and matches text consensus on the full 500-task benchmark.</summary>
    <category term="cs.AI" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <category term="cs.SE" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <published>2026-08-23T03:07:03Z</published>
    <arxiv:primary_category term="cs.AI"/>
    <author>
      <name>Kang Chen</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Junjie Nian</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Yixin Cao</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Yugang Jiang</name>
    </author>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.21867v1</id>
    <title>MemGuard: Persisting Verifier Signals for LLM-Agent Memory Governance</title>
    <updated>2026-08-22T09:25:23Z</updated>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.21867v1" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2608.21867v1" rel="related" type="application/pdf" title="pdf"/>
    <summary>LLM agents are moving from single-prompt use to long task streams in which reusable memory becomes a core capability for terminal, software-engineering, and web tasks. Such memory is useful only when stored experience remains reliable across hundreds of interactions, but two failure modes break that assumption in practice. The first is unreliable admission: failed trajectories,accidental successes, and misleading observations enter memory because they appear relevant, then mislead later decisions. The second is memory drift: long-running banks accumulate duplicate, stale, and conflicting records that retrieval alone cannot repair. MemGuard's key distinction is to treat verifier output not as a one-shot filter, but as persistent lifecycle metadata. It converts multi-criteria score-token verification into reward, confidence, label, and uncertainty descriptors that are attached to every candidate before activation and reused during retrieval, conflict resolution, summarization, and archival. We evaluate MemGuard on Terminal-Bench 2.0, SWE-Bench Verified, WebArena, and Mind2Web across four backbones, comparing against four memory baselines plus a verifier-only control under matched runtime budgets. Averaged over five seeds, MemGuard achieves the best success metric and lowest average steps in all 16 backbone-benchmark settings, improving over ReasoningBank, the strongest prior baseline among the memory methods we evaluate, with a largest gain of 7.9 success-rate points on WebArena, 5.6 step-success-rate points on Mind2Web, and 2.4-3.5 points on terminal and software-engineering benchmarks. Code is available at https://github.com/whyyyyy123/MemGuard.</summary>
    <category term="cs.AI" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <category term="cs.CL" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <published>2026-08-22T09:25:23Z</published>
    <arxiv:comment>30 pages, 7 figures</arxiv:comment>
    <arxiv:primary_category term="cs.AI"/>
    <author>
      <name>Haoyu Wang</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Guangyuan Dong</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>He Liang</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Zijing Zhang</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Jiachen Luo</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Chuang Liu</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Chao Xue</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Hao Tang</name>
    </author>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.20851v1</id>
    <title>BC-Bench: Evaluating Agentic Engineering in a Domain-Specific Language for ERP</title>
    <updated>2026-08-21T08:16:21Z</updated>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.20851v1" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2608.20851v1" rel="related" type="application/pdf" title="pdf"/>
    <summary>Agentic engineering systems have shown strong performance on general-purpose benchmarks, yet their effectiveness in enterprise resource planning (ERP) domain-specific languages (DSLs) remains underexplored. We introduce BC-Bench, a benchmark designed to evaluate agentic engineering on real-world tasks in AL, the DSL for Microsoft Dynamics 365 Business Central. BC-Bench comprises 101 manually curated tasks extracted from two Microsoft-owned production repositories, reflecting authentic ERP development workflows. Adapting the SWE-Bench methodology, we address the unique constraints of the AL ecosystem---including limited public resources and complex environment provisioning. Beyond generating functional code, BC-Bench evaluates test generation and supports multimodal problem statements where visual context is commonly present. We evaluate multiple frontier models across two agent harnesses, utilizing multi-run metrics to account for nondeterminism. In the Bug Fixing category, under our evaluated settings, between-model differences in resolution rate are larger than differences between the two evaluated agent harnesses, and improvements reported on general-purpose benchmarks do not consistently transfer to AL. These results highlight the need for domain-specific evaluation.</summary>
    <category term="cs.SE" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <category term="cs.AI" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <published>2026-08-21T08:16:21Z</published>
    <arxiv:primary_category term="cs.SE"/>
    <author>
      <name>Haoran Sun</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Klaus Marius Hansen</name>
    </author>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.20685v1</id>
    <title>Temporal Validity on Real Software Histories: Eliminating Stale-Fact Errors in Code-Assistant Memory over GitHub Fixes</title>
    <updated>2026-08-21T02:48:36Z</updated>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.20685v1" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2608.20685v1" rel="related" type="application/pdf" title="pdf"/>
    <summary>Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) has no model of time: when a fact changes across a coding session - a function is renamed, an endpoint moves, a dependency is bumped - RAG retrieves both the old and new value with near-identical similarity and cannot tell which is current, so it serves the superseded value. Paper 1 showed, on synthetic single-value benchmarks, that a deterministic (subject, relation, object) supersession memory eliminates this failure. Here we validate it end-to-end on real software history. From 707 real GitHub issues (SWE-bench Lite + Verified) we extract 130 clean atomic state transitions, a fix that changes one identifiable value from a pre-fix to a post-fix form, and render each marker-free (the stale and current statements differ only in the value). On this set, MemStrata reaches 0.91 answer accuracy versus RAG's 0.57-0.59; and, the structural result, when forced to answer RAG serves the superseded value 36-38% of the time (an LLM reranker does not help) while MemStrata drives this to ~0, at RAG retrieval latency (~2.1 s vs ~18 s for the reranker). We are explicit about scope: only ~18% of real fixes are clean atomic transitions; Paper 2 isolates the memory mechanism on that class, and extraction coverage of the remaining fixes is the orthogonal problem we defer to follow-on work. A real product bug surfaced and was fixed during the study (a case/punctuation-insensitive value comparison), with the moat property (deterministic-supersession accuracy on clean code mutations) preserved and verified.</summary>
    <category term="cs.SE" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <category term="cs.AI" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <category term="cs.CL" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <category term="cs.LG" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <published>2026-08-21T02:48:36Z</published>
    <arxiv:primary_category term="cs.SE"/>
    <author>
      <name>Neeraj Yadav</name>
    </author>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.09498v3</id>
    <title>Self-Harness: Harnesses That Improve Themselves</title>
    <updated>2026-08-20T08:48:51Z</updated>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.09498v3" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2606.09498v3" rel="related" type="application/pdf" title="pdf"/>
    <summary>The performance of LLM-based agents is jointly shaped by their base models and the harnesses that mediate their interaction with the environment. Because different models exhibit distinct behaviors, effective harness design is inherently model-specific. Yet agent harnesses are still largely engineered by human experts, a paradigm that scales poorly as modern LLMs become increasingly diverse and rapidly evolving. In this paper, we introduce Self-Harness, a new paradigm in which an LLM-based agent improves its own operating harness, without relying on human engineers or stronger external agents. We operationalize Self-Harness as an iterative loop with three stages: Weakness Mining, which identifies model-specific failure patterns from execution traces; Harness Proposal, which generates diverse yet minimal harness modifications tied to these failures; and Proposal Validation, which accepts candidate edits only after regression testing. We instantiate Self-Harness across Terminal-Bench-2.0, SWE-bench Verified, and AppWorld using a minimal initial harness and three base models from diverse families: MiniMax M2.5, Qwen3.5-35B-A3B, and GLM-5. Across all nine model--benchmark combinations, every final harness improves both held-in and held-out pass rates, with overall relative gains of up to 132%. Qualitative analyses further show that the retained mechanisms address benchmark-specific bottlenecks in artifact handling and runtime control, software-patch verification, and application-state retrieval. These results suggest a path toward LLM-based agents that are not merely shaped by their harnesses, but can also participate in reshaping them.</summary>
    <category term="cs.CL" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <published>2026-06-08T13:50:23Z</published>
    <arxiv:comment>https://github.com/qzzqzzb/Self-Harness</arxiv:comment>
    <arxiv:primary_category term="cs.CL"/>
    <author>
      <name>Hangfan Zhang</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Shao Zhang</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Kangcong Li</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Chen Zhang</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Yang Chen</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Yiqun Zhang</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Lei Bai</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Shuyue Hu</name>
    </author>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.01916v5</id>
    <title>ContextSniper: AntTrail's Token-Efficient Code Memory for Repository-Level Program Repair</title>
    <updated>2026-08-19T02:03:13Z</updated>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.01916v5" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2607.01916v5" rel="related" type="application/pdf" title="pdf"/>
    <summary>Large language model agents can repair real repository issues, but they often spend large context budgets on whole-file reads, broad searches, and long terminal outputs where useful evidence is mixed with irrelevant code and logs. This paper presents ContextSniper, AntTrail's code-repair module for precision evidence selection in repository-level program repair, part of AntTrail's broader agent-memory engine. AntTrail is available at https://gitcode.com/datagallery/AntTrail. ContextSniper indexes code and action memory as three abstract levels, retrieves candidates with a hybrid ranker, filters long tool output through an intention-aware context gate, and returns compact evidence packets while keeping full source recoverable on demand. In a matched 50-task-per-condition comparison on SWE-bench Lite (same tasks, baseline vs.\ ContextSniper), ContextSniper reduces total token use by 51.5% and logged cost by 36.4% for OpenClaw, and by 38.9% and 27.3% for Claude Code, with submitted-resolution rates essentially unchanged in both host-agent settings. In a separate five-task comparison, ContextSniper beats existing memory- and RAG-style integrations on token efficiency. These results suggest ContextSniper can substantially cut token and cost overhead for repository-level repair agents without a measurable loss in repair quality. The evaluation harness for this study is available at https://gitcode.com/lukchiwang/ContextSniper.</summary>
    <category term="cs.AI" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <published>2026-07-02T09:15:28Z</published>
    <arxiv:primary_category term="cs.AI"/>
    <author>
      <name>Chiwang Luk</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Matin Mohammad Najafi</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Zhifeng Jia</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Wei Yang</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Xiuchang Li</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Jinwei Zhu</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Yang Ren</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Lei Chen</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Gao Cong</name>
    </author>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.18389v1</id>
    <title>A Jagged Frontier: Evaluating Robustness of Code Agents to Semantics-Preserving Transformations</title>
    <updated>2026-08-18T23:46:11Z</updated>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.18389v1" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2608.18389v1" rel="related" type="application/pdf" title="pdf"/>
    <summary>AI code agents are increasingly deployed to resolve real software issues, yet their reliability under superficial code variations remains poorly understood. We evaluate whether coding agents that repair repository-level issues remain reliable when the surrounding codebase is rewritten into a semantically equivalent form. We introduce a random variant sampler that applies common semantics-preserving transformations (SPTs) - spanning control-flow rewrites, dead-code injection, and identifier renaming - to produce perturbed variants. We evaluate two agentic scaffolds (mini-SWE agent and OpenCode) each backed by one of four frontier models (Claude Opus 4.5, Kimi K2.5, MiniMax M2.5, and Qwen 3.6-27B) across instances drawn from SWE-bench Verified and SWE-bench Pro. For each instance, the agent is run multiple times on the unperturbed and perturbed variants, yielding paired resolve-rate estimates that isolate the perturbation effect from intrinsic stochasticity. We find small degradation in most configurations: up to 6.7 percentage points mean resolve-rate drop in the most affected configurations with statistically significant degradations in 6 of 16 configurations of model, scaffold, and dataset. Crucially, no single model ranking by robustness holds across scaffolds - Qwen is among the most robust under mini-SWE agent on SWE-bench Verified yet the most brittle under OpenCode - revealing a jagged robustness frontier. The simpler scaffold (mini-SWE agent) is more robust to perturbation. Our results demonstrate that even top frontier models are susceptible to semantics-preserving perturbations although the effect is not uniform, raising concerns about the deployment reliability of AI code agents in diverse real-world codebases.</summary>
    <category term="cs.AI" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <category term="cs.SE" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <published>2026-08-18T23:46:11Z</published>
    <arxiv:comment>18 pages, 6 figures</arxiv:comment>
    <arxiv:primary_category term="cs.AI"/>
    <author>
      <name>Hasan Najib Mahmud</name>
      <arxiv:affiliation>Colorado State University</arxiv:affiliation>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Shreya Gupta</name>
      <arxiv:affiliation>Microsoft</arxiv:affiliation>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Isha Chaudhary</name>
      <arxiv:affiliation>University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign</arxiv:affiliation>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Nathaniel Enis</name>
      <arxiv:affiliation>Colorado State University</arxiv:affiliation>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Ravi Mangal</name>
      <arxiv:affiliation>Colorado State University</arxiv:affiliation>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Gagandeep Singh</name>
      <arxiv:affiliation>University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign</arxiv:affiliation>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Corina Pasareanu</name>
      <arxiv:affiliation>Carnegie Mellon University</arxiv:affiliation>
    </author>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.17528v1</id>
    <title>Agent Lightning v1.0: Towards Harnessed Agentic RL</title>
    <updated>2026-08-18T08:50:13Z</updated>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.17528v1" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2608.17528v1" rel="related" type="application/pdf" title="pdf"/>
    <summary>Modern agents operate inside agent harnesses that manage tools, context, and control flow, making the harness a critical part of the agent system. Our original Agent Lightning introduced a disaggregated architecture that connects arbitrary agents to RL training through an LLM endpoint proxy, an approach later adopted by frameworks such as verl Uni-Agent, AReaL 2.0, slime, and Polar. We refer to this paradigm as harnessed agentic RL, where the deploy-time harness directly participates in model post-training. Harnessed agentic RL differs fundamentally from traditional agentic RL: the harness, rather than the training engine, owns the environment interaction loop, while the trainer observes only sequences of LLM request-response pairs. This introduces challenges in retokenization, sample merging, advantage calculation, loss normalization, and backend scheduling, which can substantially affect training stability and effectiveness. We present Agent Lightning v1.0, a lightweight framework for harnessed agentic RL implemented in approximately 3,500 lines of code. It supports arbitrary agent harnesses and serves as a practical testbed for studying these challenges. We evaluate it on instruction-following, search, and coding agents, and provide a complete reproducible pipeline for coding-agent RL. Using only 6K training examples and modest compute, RL improves Qwen3.5-9B on SWE-bench Verified from 41.8% to 56.4%, a 14.6-point absolute gain. We release the complete workflow and training scripts to facilitate reproducible research on harnessed agentic RL.</summary>
    <category term="cs.AI" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <category term="cs.SE" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <published>2026-08-18T08:50:13Z</published>
    <arxiv:primary_category term="cs.AI"/>
    <author>
      <name>Zhiyuan He</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Siwei Zhang</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Zhiwen Zhou</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Yuqing Yang</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Yu Kang</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Yuge Zhang</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Luna K. Qiu</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Tin Yan Tsui</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Jiahang Xu</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Chong Luo</name>
    </author>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.17393v1</id>
    <title>LEGO-RL: Harness-Native Reinforcement Learning for Coding Agents</title>
    <updated>2026-08-18T05:34:35Z</updated>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.17393v1" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2608.17393v1" rel="related" type="application/pdf" title="pdf"/>
    <summary>Reinforcement learning for coding agents increasingly relies on long-running agent harnesses to manage tool integration, repository contexts, and execution feedback. However, the native execution environments of these harnesses are inherently misaligned with policy-gradient training: environmental crashes and reward hacking corrupt outcome signals, while train-inference discrepancies decouple rollout behavior from policy updates. To address this, we present LEGO-RL, a framework that bridges native coding-agent harnesses with scalable policy-gradient optimization without modifying their internal control flow. LEGO-RL is built upon three pillars: (1) faithful optimization via in-process LLM proxying that captures raw generation streams for token-level alignment and robust trainer-side log-probability recomputation, even under harness-side compaction or re-serialization; (2) reliable execution via scalable sandbox orchestration featuring image caching and stage-wise defenses to mitigate reward hacking; and (3) observable training through an integrated plugin that automates validation and monitoring, paired with a Live UI for granular trajectory diagnostics. We evaluate LEGO-RL by training the sparse MoE model Qwen3.5-35B-A3B with GSPO across three native coding-agent harnesses. LEGO-RL improves Qwen3.5-35B-A3B across OpenHands SDK (64.0% to 70.4%), Claude Code (62.4% to 68.2%), and OpenCode (57.2% to 66.6%) on SWE-bench Verified, while maintaining a rollout-training probability correlation above 0.99.</summary>
    <category term="cs.AI" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <published>2026-08-18T05:34:35Z</published>
    <arxiv:comment>Webpage: https://lego-rl.pages.dev</arxiv:comment>
    <arxiv:primary_category term="cs.AI"/>
    <author>
      <name>Yiming Du</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Yuxin Jiang</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Tao Yuan</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Jianbo Dai</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Shaowei Wang</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Jierun Chen</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Chaofan Tao</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Xianzhi Yu</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Lifeng Shang</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Kam-Fai Wong</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Xiaohui Li</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Haoli Bai</name>
    </author>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.16630v1</id>
    <title>The Working Set of a Coding Agent: Coherence Debt in Repository-Scale Tasks</title>
    <updated>2026-08-17T14:30:41Z</updated>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.16630v1" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2608.16630v1" rel="related" type="application/pdf" title="pdf"/>
    <summary>Repository-scale coding requires an agent to keep tests, imports, configuration, and migration rules consistent within a bounded context window. We model this as reconstructing a coupled-fact graph: at each edit, a required fact comes from recent context or parametric memory, and the facts covered by neither form coherence debt. We supply and withhold each channel and inject faults across seven models and five harnesses. As expected, no model completes a task on an unseen API with both channels empty, and putting the facts in the prompt restores success. When a rename defeats what models memorized about a real library, all seven fail in the same place, passing and missing the same tests. Availability decides the outcome and distance does not: withholding a fact costs exactly the work it supports, and a supplied fact works as well far from the edit as next to it. Harnesses pay unequal prices for it: configurations that all pass every test differ more than tenfold in tokens consumed because they rebuild the same content at different rates, and spending more recovers nothing when facts are withheld. A missing fact produces wrong work rather than absent work: an agent asked to act acts, fabricating the file or guessing the value, so instruments built on reads look for a hole already filled. How often it says it is blocked instead is a property of the model, from every trial to none. Availability does not settle every edit: where standard and code disagree, agents follow the standard even when it prescribes the worse code, so a stale convention file costs more than no file. Because parametric memory substitutes for reading, on SWE-bench, where models likely know the repositories, reads no longer predict success. Harnesses should keep the facts an edit depends on available when the agent writes, and check that availability against what the agent produces rather than what it reads.</summary>
    <category term="cs.SE" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <category term="cs.AI" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <category term="cs.LG" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <published>2026-08-17T14:30:41Z</published>
    <arxiv:primary_category term="cs.SE"/>
    <author>
      <name>Bardia Mohammadi</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Lars Klein</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Aman Chadha</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Akhil Arora</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Laurent Bindschaedler</name>
    </author>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.18167v1</id>
    <title>Adversarial Review: Structured Disagreement for Grounded Agentic Code Review</title>
    <updated>2026-08-16T21:58:17Z</updated>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.18167v1" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2608.18167v1" rel="related" type="application/pdf" title="pdf"/>
    <summary>Early multi-agent LLM systems often used role-separated teams, yet scaling agent count yields diminishing returns on repository-level coding tasks. Recent alternatives treat agents as passive tools (subagents), yet this removes the benefits of agent interaction entirely. We study whether a subagent paradigm can support a middle ground: minimal agentic cooperation without the overhead of large multi-agent teams. We introduce Adversarial Review (AR), a minimal cooperative code-review protocol in which a main coding agent works with a reviewer and a critic agent. The reviewer evaluates code, while the critic audits the review through structured disagreement before the main agent edits. On LiveCodeBench, AR achieves the highest pass rate among tested methods, outperforming a five-agent baseline while using only three agents. On SWE-PRBench, naive AR exposes a false-consensus failure mode, where agents converge on agreement without sufficient evidence, but a single prompt iteration that adds disagreement explicitly achieves the highest F1 among tested methods. On SWE-bench Verified, AR also shows improvements over the baselines on repository-level coding tasks. Together, AR demonstrates that cooperative code review does not require many agents or complex communication structures: it requires that disagreement be minimal, structured, and evidence-grounded.</summary>
    <category term="cs.AI" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <category term="cs.SE" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <published>2026-08-16T21:58:17Z</published>
    <arxiv:comment>Accepted to ICML 2026 Workshop on DL4C</arxiv:comment>
    <arxiv:primary_category term="cs.AI"/>
    <author>
      <name>Eric S. Qiu</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Joyce Gill</name>
    </author>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.20615v3</id>
    <title>Specifying AI-SDLC Processes: A Protocol Language for Human-Agent Boundaries</title>
    <updated>2026-08-16T20:49:31Z</updated>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.20615v3" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2606.20615v3" rel="related" type="application/pdf" title="pdf"/>
    <summary>AI agents now act as first-class members of the software development lifecycle, but the instruments teams use to direct them enforce nothing: process encoded in prompts is flexible but unenforceable, while workflow formalisms are enforceable but do not model autonomous agents. We propose a domain-specific language for specifying AI-SDLC processes as protocols, with formal abstract syntax, well-formedness conditions, operational semantics, and enforcement invariants, organised around a separation of policy (declared intent) from mechanism (structural enforcement). We prove that any well-formed protocol maintains its invariants on every execution trace, closed under Kleene composition of orchestration loops: protocol steps cannot be skipped, by construction. A failure-rate analysis derives two consequences: structural enforcement bounds silent failure while converting the remainder into visible, audited stalls, and the benefit carries a capability floor. We validate the design in simulation and end-to-end on SWE-bench Verified, where an identical bug-fix methodology yields no improvement delivered as prose instructions, but a significant, replicated 14-22 point gain when executed as a validated, self-correcting process; an ablation attributes the gain to the executed process itself, and the capability floor appears where the model predicts it. As foundation models converge, the durable engineering asset is the formally specified, executable process.</summary>
    <category term="cs.AI" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <category term="cs.MA" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <category term="cs.PL" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <category term="cs.SE" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <published>2026-05-24T02:52:47Z</published>
    <arxiv:comment>v2: substantially revised - enforcement soundness theorem with Lean 4 mechanisation, restructured failure-rate analysis, expressiveness study, end-to-end evaluation on SWE-bench Verified. 30 pages. Artifact: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21967946. Under review at ACM TOSEM</arxiv:comment>
    <arxiv:primary_category term="cs.AI"/>
    <author>
      <name>Ylli Prifti</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Pasquale De Meo</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Alessandro Provetti</name>
    </author>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.15579v1</id>
    <title>Kozuchi Agent: A Language-Agnostic Open-Weight Agent for Software Repair</title>
    <updated>2026-08-16T07:06:37Z</updated>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.15579v1" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2608.15579v1" rel="related" type="application/pdf" title="pdf"/>
    <summary>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. We present Kozuchi Agent, a language-agnostic open-weight repair agent and CI-operated evaluation pipeline. Explicit phases, persistent state, deterministic tools, a model-independent action interface, and cross-agent test-time selection make runs auditable and repeatable. With locally hosted Qwen3.5-27B, no fine-tuning, and TTS@8, Kozuchi resolves 374/500 SWE-bench Verified instances on the official evaluator. Unchanged on Multi-SWE-bench Java, the same 27-billion-parameter agent resolves 41/128 instances (32.03%), ranking first among strict open-weight submissions and fourth of 42 overall; on Python it ranks 12th of 135 and first among open-weight systems. Per-phase behavior remains within +/-5 percentage points across languages. Remaining failures mainly reflect semantic correctness, Java-specific harness issues, and selection errors. Across both tracks, results compare favorably with open/local peers by parameter count. Analysis of candidate diversity, selector regret, and patch reliability shows that the remaining gap is primarily semantic correctness and selection rather than edit formatting or proprietary-model access. Operationally, reusable CI stages reduce operator touch-points from five to one across heterogeneous internal clusters.</summary>
    <category term="cs.SE" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <category term="cs.AI" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <category term="cs.ET" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <category term="cs.PL" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <published>2026-08-16T07:06:37Z</published>
    <arxiv:comment>13 pages, 4 figures. Accepted at the 41st IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE '26), Industry Showcase track, Munich, Germany, October 12-16, 2026</arxiv:comment>
    <arxiv:primary_category term="cs.SE"/>
    <author>
      <name>Mehdi Bahrami</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Kosaku Kimura</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Satoshi Munakata</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Satoshi Nakashima</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Yu Ishikawa</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Kosuke Maeda</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Nao Soma</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Kenichi Kobayashi</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Keisuke Miyazaki</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Keizo Kato</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Shigeki Fukuta</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Tatsuo Kumano</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Nobutaka Imamura</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Kevin Musgrave</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Shahbaz Abdul Khader</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Kwun Ho Ngan</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Joe Townsend</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Fayas Asharindavida</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Matthieu Parizy</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Akira Sakai</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Yuma Ichikawa</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Yang Zhao</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Michiaki Takizawa</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Taku Fukui</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Hiroki Ohtsuji</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Wei-Peng Chen</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Hiromichi Kobashi</name>
    </author>
    <arxiv:doi>10.1145/3832783.3834531</arxiv:doi>
    <link rel="related" href="https://doi.org/10.1145/3832783.3834531" title="doi"/>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.14863v1</id>
    <title>Evaluating Agentic Code Repair Capabilities in Distributed Systems</title>
    <updated>2026-08-14T19:59:56Z</updated>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.14863v1" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2608.14863v1" rel="related" type="application/pdf" title="pdf"/>
    <summary>LLM-based coding agents have advanced rapidly on single-process SWE tasks, with frontier models now clustering in the high-70s on SWE-bench Verified. Distributed-system debugging, however, remains an under-explored regime: bugs span processes, nodes, and protocol interactions, with root causes rarely recoverable from source alone and brute-force exploration intractable across non-deterministic interleavings. This leaves two gaps in LLM and agent evaluation: no code-repair benchmark targets distributed-system bugs, and no controlled study isolates how much externally provided debugging context changes agent success on them. We introduce DDBench, a code-repair benchmark of 60 historical bugs mined from 13 open-source distributed systems, partitioned into three difficulty tiers.
  DDBench evaluates every case under two matched conditions: a symptom-only condition where the agent receives only the bug symptom and repository, and a context-augmented condition where it additionally receives a bounded debugging context (logs, traces, runtime state, and targeted code-investigation notes), isolating the effect of debugging context from model capability. The evaluation of ten LLMs on DDBench reveals several findings. First, distributed debugging exercises a reasoning dimension that single-process benchmarks do not surface: models' pass rates span 61 pp, and pairwise bootstrap separates 9 of 15 top-tier model pairs at p &lt; 0.05 on DDBench's hardest case-set. Second, bounded debugging context lifts aggregate pass rate by +18.1 pp, and the lift is asymmetric: weaker models gain pass rate, while stronger models gain efficiency. Third, debugging context requires careful curation, as even faithful debugging context can sometimes mislead LLMs.</summary>
    <category term="cs.SE" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <category term="cs.AI" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <category term="cs.DC" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <published>2026-08-14T19:59:56Z</published>
    <arxiv:comment>Under submission</arxiv:comment>
    <arxiv:primary_category term="cs.SE"/>
    <author>
      <name>Yibo Yan</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Huijuan Wang</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Junzhou He</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Yizhuo Liang</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Shaoyu Wang</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Huanchen Sun</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Seo Jin Park</name>
    </author>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.14838v1</id>
    <title>The Recall Trap: A Recall-Maximizing Retriever Configuration Reduces Issue Resolution in Fixed-Budget Code Context</title>
    <updated>2026-08-14T19:22:50Z</updated>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.14838v1" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2608.14838v1" rel="related" type="application/pdf" title="pdf"/>
    <summary>Retrieval components for code assistants are tuned against retrieval metrics: a configuration that raises recall@k is adopted, and downstream task success is assumed to follow. We report a controlled case study in code repair, not a new phenomenon but a deployed-flag, execution-graded instance of the known relevance-diversity and objective-mismatch tradeoff (Levy et al., 2025). On SWE-bench Verified we inject a retriever's hits as a fixed 12-slot context pack with no search tools and toggle one flag (one-chunk-per-file deduplication) on an otherwise identical stack. The flag is the higher-recall configuration (gold file present in 0.878 of served packs against 0.806 disabled), yet disabling it, trading file breadth for within-file depth, raises the single-shot resolve rate: gpt-5.6-sol +7.6pp (39.2% to 46.8%, n=500, McNemar exact p=0.0003), and a pre-registered open-weights replication any reviewer can re-run (Qwen3.6-27B, +3.6pp, n=499, p=0.0133); both survive repository-clustered inference. The gain tracks within-file anchor dose, and a random-chunk control refutes an argmax-selection artifact. We map where it holds: it reverses on a lexical BM25 retriever (-3.2pp, significant cross-paradigm interaction), is not detected under unrestricted-Read agents (a powered null), and across four languages (SWE-PolyBench, N=617) is positive but not significant (+2.6pp, p=0.056), a mapped boundary rather than a confirmed extension. Operationally, at a tight fixed budget: do not hard-deduplicate by file, and A/B packing policies against the task, not the metric the flag was tuned to.</summary>
    <category term="cs.SE" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <category term="cs.CL" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <category term="cs.IR" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <published>2026-08-14T19:22:50Z</published>
    <arxiv:comment>24 pages, 2 figures. Reproducibility artifact: Zenodo DOI 10.5281/zenodo.21879550</arxiv:comment>
    <arxiv:primary_category term="cs.SE"/>
    <author>
      <name>Alexander Adkins</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Teimuraz Trapaidze</name>
    </author>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.14312v1</id>
    <title>Envs-FORGE: Frontier-Optimized Reward-Grounded Environment Synthesis for Agent RL</title>
    <updated>2026-08-14T13:54:22Z</updated>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.14312v1" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2608.14312v1" rel="related" type="application/pdf" title="pdf"/>
    <summary>Reinforcement learning (RL) for terminal agents needs executable training environments with reliable rewards and useful difficulty. Fixed recipes such as few-shot, Self-Instruct, and Evol-Instruct apply the same prompting policy to every seed, even when the current policy would benefit from a harder, easier, or simply different task. We present Envs-FORGE, a prompting policy that converts verifier rewards into per-seed environment-synthesis actions. Envs-FORGE estimates seed pass rates, scores six projection--direction actions around a target learning frontier, and solves a per-seed mixed-integer linear program (MILP) to choose the action that conditions generation. The selected action drives synchronized rewriting of the instruction, fixtures, oracle solution, tests, and Docker environment; only gold-verified bundles enter RL training. The indexed MILP form also supports optional soft skill coverage for portfolio planning. On Qwen 3.5 35B, Envs-FORGE improves Pass@1 over Base by 9.2 percentage points on tb-core (40.0% to 49.2%) and 6.4 points on tb-2.0 (23.0% to 29.4%), exceeding the strongest fixed-recipe baseline by 2.4 and 2.1 points. It reaches 77.1% on SWE-bench Verified versus 73.4% for Base, and improves tb-core by 6.8--9.2 points across the evaluated 4B--35B models. All synthesis methods export 100 verified environments and use 2.27M--2.88M synthesis tokens, placing the comparison at the same downstream training-set size and the same operational scale. The source code is available at https://github.com/DataArcTech/DataArc-SynData-Toolkit/.</summary>
    <category term="cs.CL" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <published>2026-08-14T13:54:22Z</published>
    <arxiv:comment>19 pages, 5 figures</arxiv:comment>
    <arxiv:primary_category term="cs.CL"/>
    <author>
      <name>Xiaojun Wu</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Cehao Yang</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Honghao Liu</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Xueyuan Lin</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Zhichao Shi</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Hao Zhou</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Xuhui Jiang</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Chengjin Xu</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Jia Li</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Jian Guo</name>
    </author>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.13951v1</id>
    <title>HELIX: Model-Harness Co-evolution for Recursive Self-Improvement</title>
    <updated>2026-08-14T04:44:53Z</updated>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.13951v1" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2608.13951v1" rel="related" type="application/pdf" title="pdf"/>
    <summary>Scaling agent capability has largely focused on improving the model, yet an interactive agent acts through a runtime harness that mediates context, tools, control flow, and stopping. The harness shapes both what a model can accomplish and the trajectories from which it learns. This coupling motivates model-harness co-evolution for recursive self-improvement: build harnesses for a fixed model, update the model from verified sibling trajectories, and rebuild the harnesses as model capabilities change. Realizing this loop requires a controlled way to evolve harnesses while preserving intervention identity and effect. We present HELIX, a source-traceable substrate for harness evolution. HELIX decomposes agent systems into typed ports, reusable atoms, recipes, product shells, and runtime policies. It makes interventions explicit and auditable while retaining trajectories, test outcomes, and provenance. Harness evolution thus serves two linked roles: improving fixed-model execution and producing matched successes, regressions, near misses, and alternative solutions as data for subsequent model improvement. We evaluate HELIX in one evolution round on code repair. A 65-candidate portfolio discovers a fixed harness that improves task coverage by 4.0% over Pi, while the full portfolio exposes up to 58.0% more verified coverage through complementary sibling behavior. Selected candidates are assessed with repeated runs and the SWE-bench evaluator. A 200-slot sibling slice yields 438 verified SFT, critic, filter, and preference records. These results show how harness, model, and data form a feedback system: harness evolution expands current capability and creates learning signal for the next model; model updates motivate the next round of harness evolution. HELIX provides an auditable interface for studying this recursive process. Code is available at https://github.com/HKUDS/HELIX.</summary>
    <category term="cs.AI" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <published>2026-08-14T04:44:53Z</published>
    <arxiv:primary_category term="cs.AI"/>
    <author>
      <name>Tianyu Fan</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Chao Huang</name>
    </author>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.13292v1</id>
    <title>Refine After Generation: Toward Correct and Concise Patches in LLM-based Program Repair</title>
    <updated>2026-08-13T14:25:50Z</updated>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.13292v1" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2608.13292v1" rel="related" type="application/pdf" title="pdf"/>
    <summary>Large language models (LLMs) have advanced automatic program repair (APR) to the point where agentic systems routinely resolve real-world, repository-level issues. Yet the generated patch has received little scrutiny beyond whether it passes tests.
  In this paper, we identify patch verbosity as a major yet overlooked concern in LLM-based APR. Characterizing 28 state-of-the-art approaches on SWE-bench Verified, we find that even successful patches are consistently larger and more complex than developer patches, with the median approach producing 121.78% more total changes, 80.91% more net changes, and 43.99% higher cyclomatic complexity. We further show that this verbosity is rooted in capability-oriented design choices such as iterative refinement and broad context, and can hardly be reduced by surface-level controls such as output format or minimality prompts. Motivated by these findings, we formulate post-generation patch refinement and propose RECAP, a lightweight, plug-and-play adapter that attaches to existing repair frameworks after generation. RECAP's refiner is trained via supervised fine-tuning and direct preference optimization with distilled reasoning traces, on a dataset of patch pairs we construct from multiple sources. Across four host systems, prompting, commit-untangling, and minimality-aware baselines reduce patch size only by sacrificing 49 to 217 resolved instances. In contrast, RECAP achieves a substantially better size-correctness tradeoff, cutting average total changes from +242.14% to +4.24% and net changes from +348.24% to -39.75% relative to developer patches while preserving or improving resolution by up to 42 instances. Our results indicate that minimality cannot be simply reduced to syntactic compression, and that decoupling minimization from generation offers a practical path to more reviewable repairs.</summary>
    <category term="cs.SE" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <published>2026-08-13T14:25:50Z</published>
    <arxiv:primary_category term="cs.SE"/>
    <author>
      <name>Wenqiang Luo</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Jacky Keung</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Xiaoyu Shi</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Yicheng Sun</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Boyang Yang</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Zhou Yang</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Haoye Tian</name>
    </author>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.13228v1</id>
    <title>Capability Sheaves for Compositional Agent-Harness Repair: Controlled Quotients and a Real-Repository Stress Test</title>
    <updated>2026-08-13T13:31:09Z</updated>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.13228v1" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2608.13228v1" rel="related" type="application/pdf" title="pdf"/>
    <summary>Agent harnesses combine retrieval, routing, state, provenance, and verification, but locally successful components may disagree on shared state. We model this failure with a finite \emph{capability sheaf}: stalks encode typed behavior signatures, restriction maps retain shared fields, and accepted runs are useful global sections. An exact finite constraint-satisfaction problem (CSP) defines acceptance, while a linearized relative cohomology class provides a diagnostic and search feature.
  A controlled experiment over 20 task clusters introduces hidden interior mediators whose raw states are nuisance variables. Quotienting their coboundaries reduces the candidate budget from 2,000 to 1,000 per cluster; aligning the hidden state removes the gap. Exact CSP matches the quotient, so the result demonstrates invariance to stale representatives, not superiority over exact reasoning.
  We then test the method on a discovery split from the SWE-bench Multilingual pool of PatchFuseBench: 160 issues from 20 repositories, 875 real candidate patches, 2,579 source-aware edit atoms, and 153 newly executed patches. A first pool-level construction is constant because $[b-Dx]=[b]$ in $\operatorname{coker}D$ and therefore cannot rank configurations. A candidate-indexed repair is nontrivial on 848/875 candidates and varies within 120/160 issues. It resolves 118 issues versus 116 for a matched noncohomological selector, but the difference is not supported across repositories (exact sign-flip $p=0.75$). A leave-one-repository-out abstention gate reaches 127/160, tying the strong anchor and exceeding its matched gate by one issue ($p=1.0$). The discovery gate therefore fails and the confirmatory split remains sealed. The study supports the controlled invariance mechanism and an identifiability correction, but not a real-world cohomological advantage.</summary>
    <category term="cs.AI" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <category term="cs.LG" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <published>2026-08-13T13:31:09Z</published>
    <arxiv:primary_category term="cs.AI"/>
    <author>
      <name>Saveliy Batruin</name>
    </author>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.12161v5</id>
    <title>Token Reduction Is Not Cost Reduction</title>
    <updated>2026-08-12T23:03:16Z</updated>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.12161v5" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2607.12161v5" rel="related" type="application/pdf" title="pdf"/>
    <summary>Token-reduction tools for coding agents are often evaluated by the number of tokens they remove, but token count alone does not determine end-to-end inference cost. We evaluate three token-reduction approaches against an unmodified Claude Code baseline across controlled coding tasks, measuring provider-billed cost, task success, cache traffic, and agent behavior. The largest compression setup reduced delivered tool-output tokens by 38.4% but increased billed cost by 6.8%, while lighter compression produced only small and statistically uncertain savings. Across tasks, token reduction was weakly correlated with cost reduction (Pearson r = 0.15). Cost decomposition shows that prompt-cache creation and reads dominate the measured input-side cost, leaving only a limited fraction of total spend directly addressable by tool-output compression. We also find that compression can alter agent trajectories through additional retrieval, diagnosis, testing, and turns, offsetting local token savings. On a SWE-bench Go subset, aggressive compression also reduced successful patch application. These results show that token reduction is not a reliable proxy for cost reduction in tool-heavy coding agents. Effective optimization should therefore be evaluated at the level of cost per successful task, including cache behavior, trajectory changes, and correctness rather than token counts alone.</summary>
    <category term="cs.CL" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <published>2026-07-13T21:10:22Z</published>
    <arxiv:primary_category term="cs.CL"/>
    <author>
      <name>Sarel Weinberger</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Amir Hozez</name>
    </author>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.11513v1</id>
    <title>Do Influence Tactics Matter? Investigating Prompt Framing Effects in LLM Code Generation</title>
    <updated>2026-08-11T23:57:06Z</updated>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.11513v1" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2608.11513v1" rel="related" type="application/pdf" title="pdf"/>
    <summary>Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly integrated into software engineering workflows, helping developers write, debug, test, and maintain code. While prompt wording and structure are known to influence model performance, the impact of psychologically inspired prompt framings remains unexplored. This study investigates whether different psychology-based communication strategies that humans use to persuade or motivate others can lead to more effective prompt framing, which may, in turn, affect LLM behaviour in coding tasks. Drawing on Yukl &amp; Falbe's well-known taxonomy, we operationalized eight influence tactics (like rational persuasion, ingratiation, and exchange) into reproducible prompt templates. These prompt templates were evaluated across five leading open-weight LLMs using two widely adopted benchmarks: LiveCodeBench and SWE-bench Verified. We assessed the resulting code output on four key software quality dimensions: functional correctness, quality, maintainability, and security. Our results show that certain influence-induced prompt framings, particularly those emphasizing urgency, were associated with reduced correctness and security. This work presents the first large-scale empirical study of influence-induced prompt framing in software engineering tasks, offering insights into how linguistic cues may shape LLM outputs. We conclude with practical insights for designing transparent and interpretable human-AI interactions in code generation.</summary>
    <category term="cs.SE" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <category term="cs.AI" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <category term="cs.CL" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <published>2026-08-11T23:57:06Z</published>
    <arxiv:comment>Accepted for publication in Empirical Software Engineering. This is the accepted manuscript version. 37 pages, 3 figures</arxiv:comment>
    <arxiv:primary_category term="cs.SE"/>
    <arxiv:journal_ref>Empirical Software Engineering 32 (2026) 13</arxiv:journal_ref>
    <author>
      <name>Alex Deaconu</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Anubhav Gupta</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Manaal Basha</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Nicholas Haydu</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Gema Rodríguez-Pérez</name>
    </author>
    <arxiv:doi>10.1007/s10664-026-10934-z</arxiv:doi>
    <link rel="related" href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-026-10934-z" title="doi"/>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.14711v1</id>
    <title>Beyond Pass@k: Measuring Reliability and Security of Agentic Code Generation</title>
    <updated>2026-08-11T16:01:15Z</updated>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.14711v1" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2608.14711v1" rel="related" type="application/pdf" title="pdf"/>
    <summary>AI coding agent benchmarks rank agents with the Chen et al. (2021) pass@k estimator, but current implementations misapply it: they set n to the number of unit tests in a single submission rather than the number of independent rollout attempts, conflating test-suite size with attempt independence. We diagnose this operationalization error, prove it by counterexample, and propose reliability@k, the same estimator applied correctly, with n = independent rollouts and c = fully-passing rollouts per (task, agent) pair. In a synthetic multi-rollout benchmark, the misapplied metric inflates reported scores by 0.85-0.97 in absolute terms (0.96-0.98 reported vs. 0.00-0.12 corrected), and a cheap single-rollout proxy fails to substitute for repeated runs (Spearman $ρ= 0.417$). Motivated by evidence that functional correctness does not imply security safety, we additionally propose security-adjusted reliability@k, which counts only rollouts that are both functionally correct and free of high-severity insecure patterns. In an initial live-API test with three agents, the adjustment did not change any ranking under our current scanner and threshold, so we present it as a proposed complementary lens whose decisive evaluation requires better-powered future runs. Finally, a preliminary 5-task SWE-bench Verified pilot observes the same core concern in a real repository setting: macro-averaged hidden-test pass rate was 0.80 while strict task resolution was 0.20.</summary>
    <category term="cs.AI" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <published>2026-08-11T16:01:15Z</published>
    <arxiv:primary_category term="cs.AI"/>
    <author>
      <name>Jiajun Jiang</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Sharon Zheng</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Natan Vidra</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Spurthi Setty</name>
    </author>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.10178v1</id>
    <title>One Recipe, Many Harnesses: What Self-Evolution Encodes Across Languages and Models</title>
    <updated>2026-08-10T19:45:45Z</updated>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.10178v1" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2608.10178v1" rel="related" type="application/pdf" title="pdf"/>
    <summary>Self-evolving harnesses are closed-loop systems in which an agent inspects its own rollouts and edits its prompts, tools, and memory. They reliably improve coding agents in evaluations, but prior work reports aggregate gains rather than analyzing what the evolved artifacts encode. It therefore remains unclear whether they encode benchmark-specific adaptations, language-specific engineering knowledge, or compensation for limitations of the underlying model. We disentangle these factors by holding an evolution recipe fixed across a grid of eight programming languages (Multi-SWE-Bench) and three base models, and analyzing the resulting harnesses. The recipe routes every edit through a typed failure signal and records it as a falsifiable contract, making each modification attributable after evolution. Four findings emerge. (1)The loop improves held-out solve rates over both a minimal seed and the manually designed mini-SWE-agent scaffold in most cells, but with two null regions. (2)Gains compensate recoverable execution defects, where defect mass is near zero, and gain is near zero; which defect dominates is cell-specific. A harness closes the gap between what a policy can do and what it does. (3)Evolved harnesses share an abstract playbook across languages but instantiate it with almost disjoint language ecosystem machinery. (4)The shared core transfers and can be distilled into one universal harness, while an ecosystem margin resists both and requires native re-evolution. Together, these results recast the evolved harness as a legible compensation layer, shaped jointly by the language's engineering demands and the model's behavioral gaps, rather than an opaque benchmark-tuned scaffold.</summary>
    <category term="cs.SE" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <published>2026-08-10T19:45:45Z</published>
    <arxiv:comment>20 pages, 12 figures, 9 tables. Includes appendix</arxiv:comment>
    <arxiv:primary_category term="cs.SE"/>
    <author>
      <name>Siqi Yang</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Qianlan Yang</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Yu-Xiong Wang</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Saurabh Pujar</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Martin Hirzel</name>
    </author>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.09802v1</id>
    <title>SWE-Bench ProMax: Benchmarking Agents on Large-Scale Multilingual Code Refactoring</title>
    <updated>2026-08-10T16:23:19Z</updated>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.09802v1" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2608.09802v1" rel="related" type="application/pdf" title="pdf"/>
    <summary>As AI coding agents take on increasingly complex, long-horizon software engineering tasks, existing benchmarks are rapidly saturating and their evaluation quality has come under serious scrutiny: a recent audit found that nearly 60% of unsolved SWE-bench Verified instances contain flawed tests -- either overly narrow tests that reject correct solutions or overly broad tests that check unstated requirements -- and that frontier models can verbatim reproduce gold patches from training data. Code refactoring, which requires coordinated, behavior-preserving changes across many files, offers a substantially harder and more realistic test of agent capability, yet remains underserved by current benchmarks. We introduce SWE-Bench ProMax, an expert-curated, multilingual code refactoring benchmark of 170 instances drawn from real commits across seven programming languages (Python, Java, TypeScript, Go, C, C++, and Rust). Every instance undergoes rigorous, multi-stage curation that directly addresses the quality problems identified in prior benchmarks: issue descriptions are rewritten from scratch to provide precise, unambiguous specifications, and test suites are manually reviewed to remove overly narrow and overly broad tests. Tasks with insufficient complexity or limited cross-file scope are filtered out, yielding a benchmark of challenging, large-scale refactoring tasks that average 11.4 modified files and 261.6 lines of code per instance, substantially exceeding the scale of existing benchmarks. Experiments with frontier models under two agent scaffolds show that the best model achieves only 41.2% resolve rate, confirming that SWE-Bench ProMax presents a meaningful and unsaturated challenge for current AI coding agents. Our benchmark is available at https://huggingface.co/datasets/swe-bench-promax/SWE-Bench-ProMax.</summary>
    <category term="cs.CL" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <category term="cs.SE" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <published>2026-08-10T16:23:19Z</published>
    <arxiv:comment>Published as a conference paper at COLM 2026</arxiv:comment>
    <arxiv:primary_category term="cs.CL"/>
    <author>
      <name>Yuling Shi</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Jinghan Xu</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Kelin Fu</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Wenhao Zeng</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Shilin He</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Lei Zhang</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Yue Liu</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Zelin Zhao</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Terry Yue Zhuo</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Jialun Cao</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Siyu Ye</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Tianyu Liu</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Kai Cai</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Shing-Chi Cheung</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Xiaodong Gu</name>
    </author>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.09268v1</id>
    <title>Can Coding Agents Solve Repository-Level Issues with Rendered Code? An Exploratory Study of Visual Representations</title>
    <updated>2026-08-10T08:24:19Z</updated>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.09268v1" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2608.09268v1" rel="related" type="application/pdf" title="pdf"/>
    <summary>Visual modality has recently been explored as a way to compress textual tokens, including rendering code as images for static code understanding. We study whether this representation can serve as operational context for agentic coding, where an agent must navigate repositories, edit source files, and verify executable patches. Using SWE-bench Verified, we evaluate rendered code in repository-level repair workflows and introduce controlled agent settings to separate unguided repository exploration from more structured repair stages. Our results show a mixed picture. Rendered code consistently reduces prompt-token cost, but the savings do not increase linearly with the nominal visual compression ratio. It largely preserves end-to-end repair accuracy, but does not overcome the performance limits of the underlying model or agent architecture, and can become unstable under aggressive compression. Further analysis suggests that visual code is most useful when raw source reading is a major bottleneck; once repository localization is structured, much of the remaining cost comes from patch--test trial-and-error, where visual compression has limited leverage. Overall, our study positions rendered code as a viable but conditional compression mechanism for realistic coding agents.</summary>
    <category term="cs.HC" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <category term="cs.AI" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <published>2026-08-10T08:24:19Z</published>
    <arxiv:comment>8 pages of main content</arxiv:comment>
    <arxiv:primary_category term="cs.HC"/>
    <author>
      <name>Weijie Liang</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Yuanfeng Song</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Xing Chen</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Caleb Chen Cao</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Sirui Han</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Yike Guo</name>
    </author>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.08950v1</id>
    <title>Independent Patch Verification for Coding Agents with a Bidirectional Reconstruct-and-Verify Framework</title>
    <updated>2026-08-09T22:59:13Z</updated>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.08950v1" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2608.08950v1" rel="related" type="application/pdf" title="pdf"/>
    <summary>Autonomous coding agents powered by large language models can now generate code patches directly from bug reports, but a fundamental gap remains: once a patch is produced, no mechanism independently verifies whether it truly resolves the reported problem. Prior work has sought to address this through iterative self-refinement and inference-time scaling, but these approaches either review the patch under the same interpretation that produced it or broaden candidate generation without verifying individual patches, and neither provides an explicit verification signal for assessing patch correctness. We propose RETRACE, a training-free post-generation verification framework that derives such a signal through bidirectional reconstruction and reconciliation. When a coding agent generates a candidate patch for an issue, RETRACE performs forward reconstruction to build an explicit repair rationale from the issue and the agent's trajectory; backward reconstruction then independently infers, from the patch and its trajectory alone and without access to the original issue, a description of the problem the patch appears to address, and compares this reconstruction against the original issue to produce an alignment verdict; a reconciliation stage then checks the consistency between the forward rationale and the patch, diagnoses the source of any misalignment, and either submits the patch or produces targeted revision guidance. Evaluated on SWE-bench Verified with two backbones (GPT-5-mini and MiniMax-2.5), RETRACE lifts Pass@1 by 7.0% and 3.6% respectively on the mini-SWE-agent scaffold, and delivers comparable gains on OpenHands without modification. Ablation experiments show that both the forward and backward stages contribute to the overall improvement and that adding reconciliation yields further gains.</summary>
    <category term="cs.SE" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <published>2026-08-09T22:59:13Z</published>
    <arxiv:comment>8 pages</arxiv:comment>
    <arxiv:primary_category term="cs.SE"/>
    <author>
      <name>Chenglin Li</name>
      <arxiv:affiliation>Peter</arxiv:affiliation>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Yisen Xu</name>
      <arxiv:affiliation>Peter</arxiv:affiliation>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Zehao Wang</name>
      <arxiv:affiliation>Peter</arxiv:affiliation>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Shin Hwei Tan</name>
      <arxiv:affiliation>Peter</arxiv:affiliation>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name> Tse-Hsun</name>
      <arxiv:affiliation>Peter</arxiv:affiliation>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name> Chen</name>
    </author>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.14697v1</id>
    <title>Synchronized Logit Steering: Real-world Steganography</title>
    <updated>2026-08-09T22:49:45Z</updated>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.14697v1" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2608.14697v1" rel="related" type="application/pdf" title="pdf"/>
    <summary>Steganography in large language models offers a way to embed hidden messages within natural-sounding text. Existing token and logit-level methods typically require the sender and receiver to share an identical prompt context, which is rarely guaranteed in production pipelines that use retrieval-augmented generation or proprietary system instructions. We introduce Synchronized Logit Steering (SLS), a deterministic steganographic scheme that eliminates this dependency by deriving a proxy prompt from the generated output itself, allowing both parties to reconstruct the same logit distribution without access to the original prompt. SLS encodes payload values as token ranks within high-entropy regions of the proxy prompt distribution, and we extend the scheme with periodic recurrence and payload bursts to scale information density. Across ShareGPT, GSM8K, and SWE-bench Verified, we show that the KL divergence between the true and proxy prompt distributions falls below 0.5 nats once the synchronization window reaches 40 tokens, and SLS encoding does not meaningfully disrupt this convergence relative to greedy generation. We also find that the periodic-burst variant achieves 0.20 bits per token, or roughly 10x the capacity of single-payload encoding. Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests further confirm that SLS outputs are statistically difficult to distinguish from greedy generations, demonstrating that covert, prompt-agnostic communication through LLMs is both practical and stealthy.</summary>
    <category term="cs.AI" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <published>2026-08-09T22:49:45Z</published>
    <arxiv:primary_category term="cs.AI"/>
    <author>
      <name>Andrew Rufail</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Aadi Dash</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Onir Narahari</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Ethan Mui</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Mahi Gajare</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Prakhar Tiwari</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Shrija Makapothula</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Nick Cui</name>
    </author>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.08570v1</id>
    <title>FailForge: Distilling Procedural Competence from Persistent Failures into Code Agents</title>
    <updated>2026-08-09T08:22:57Z</updated>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.08570v1" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2608.08570v1" rel="related" type="application/pdf" title="pdf"/>
    <summary>Rejection sampling fine-tuning (RFT) is widely used to train code agents by generating trajectories on verifiable software engineering tasks, retaining those that pass the tests, and fine-tuning on the successful rollouts. However, even strong code agents repeatedly fail on a substantial fraction of such tasks, and standard RFT simply discards these failures. The discarded samples are precisely the hardest and most informative ones, drawn from verifiable instances that are costly to curate. Stronger base models may reduce the number of failures, but the remaining hard cases still define the frontier for further improvement. We propose FailForge, an agentic framework that converts failed rollouts into training signal. For each failed instance, an agent diagnoses the failure from error feedback and execution traces, distills the diagnosis into a concise and actionable skill, and injects the skill into the agent context for a guided second attempt. Trajectories that succeed under skill guidance are folded back into the RFT corpus. Crucially, the skill is removed at training time, so the model internalizes the recovered behavior rather than relying on external hints at inference. FailForge recovers over 26% of previously failed instances at marginal additional cost, and training Qwen3.5-4B on the augmented corpus improves the SWE-bench Verified resolve rate by 6.6 points over a strong RFT baseline, with gains concentrated on the hardest problems.</summary>
    <category term="cs.AI" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <published>2026-08-09T08:22:57Z</published>
    <arxiv:primary_category term="cs.AI"/>
    <author>
      <name>Dongyi Lv</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Fushun E</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Aichen Cai</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Liang Huang</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Ya Zhang</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Qiuyu Ding</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Canhui Wu</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Zhi Wang</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Yuesong Zhang</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Jiaqi Wang</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Nan Duan</name>
    </author>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.08239v1</id>
    <title>The Replay Gap: Static Evaluation of Model Switching in LLM Agents Scores the Wrong World</title>
    <updated>2026-08-08T17:07:11Z</updated>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.08239v1" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2608.08239v1" rel="related" type="application/pdf" title="pdf"/>
    <summary>LLM routers promise efficiency by matching each request to the cheapest adequate model, and are increasingly applied per step inside multi-step agents. Yet agentic routers are evaluated like single-turn routers: by replaying logged trajectories and substituting another model's recorded outputs, assuming the rest of the trajectory is unaffected. We test this assumption with branching rollouts: we fork live SWE-bench agent trajectories at controlled points, rebuild the environment, continue each fork with a different model, and compare against same-model control forks that isolate sampling and replay noise. Across six paired runs (~900 rollouts), swaps exceed their matched control floors by +0.25 to +0.66 normalized edit distance (multiplicity-corrected CIs exclude zero), rewriting 61-94% of post-fork actions; 74-77% of early swaps diverge at the first post-fork action, versus 6-35% of controls, leaving only 3% of replayed states valid. Divergence decreases with fork depth in both directions. All five outcome flips we observe occur in swap arms, upgrades rescuing unsolved instances and a downgrade losing the sole solve, and zero occur across 359 control forks. Scoring these same swaps with a log-stitching replay evaluator, replay mispredicts every success-relevant outcome call and predicts patches with 0.00-0.11 similarity to reality. Auditing the noise floor, temperature-0 "determinism" is configuration-dependent: FP8-served controls diverge on over 90% of forks while AWQ-served ones remain near-identical; and under tight budgets the stronger model more often exhausts its steps without submitting. Replay-based benchmarks score the wrong world for agentic routing; we release our harness and all trajectories.</summary>
    <category term="cs.LG" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <category term="cs.CL" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <published>2026-08-08T17:07:11Z</published>
    <arxiv:comment>8 pages, 3 figures. Accepted at the Conference on Language Modeling 2026. Code: https://github.com/AshrithaG/replay-gap Data: https://huggingface.co/datasets/ashritha0907/replay-gap-trajectories</arxiv:comment>
    <arxiv:primary_category term="cs.LG"/>
    <author>
      <name>Ashritha Gonuguntla</name>
    </author>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.00376v2</id>
    <title>The Deterministic Horizon: When Extended Reasoning Fails and Tool Delegation Becomes Necessary</title>
    <updated>2026-08-08T12:11:07Z</updated>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.00376v2" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2606.00376v2" rel="related" type="application/pdf" title="pdf"/>
    <summary>Extended chain-of-thought reasoning can degrade performance on deterministic state-tracking tasks, not solely because of preference biases but, on the evidence we present, because of information-theoretic limits in the capacity of decoder-only attention. We present: (1) an Attention Bottleneck analysis providing evidence that total state-tracking capacity in bits is bounded in terms of head count, head dimension, and context length under stated modeling assumptions, and that total capacity is not the binding constraint; (2) a context-dependent error model with a depth-dependent quadratic term in the error exponent; (3) the State-Space Jaccard metric measuring state drift; and (4) a Deterministic Horizon $d^* \in [19, 31]$ (at $α= 0.5$) marking the depth at which unaided accuracy crosses 50%. Across twelve models and eight task domains (including SWE-Bench, WebArena, and SQL-Multi), tool-integrated reasoning reaches 76-94% accuracy versus 17-42% for neural chain-of-thought on PermutationProbe. Fine-tuning on optimal-length traces yields $&lt;$3 percentage-point improvement, supporting an architectural ceiling.</summary>
    <category term="cs.AI" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <category term="cs.CL" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <category term="cs.LG" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <published>2026-05-29T21:35:23Z</published>
    <arxiv:primary_category term="cs.AI"/>
    <author>
      <name>Dongxin Guo</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Jikun Wu</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Siu Ming Yiu</name>
    </author>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.07645v1</id>
    <title>Mendel Gödel Machine: Recursive Self-Improving Coding Agents via Comparative Evolution</title>
    <updated>2026-08-07T16:46:44Z</updated>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.07645v1" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2608.07645v1" rel="related" type="application/pdf" title="pdf"/>
    <summary>Self-improving coding agents that iteratively rewrite their own source code have demonstrated impressive performance on coding tasks. However, existing solutions generally derive self-modification from a single failure trajectory at a time, overlooking rich comparative signals available in the agent's expanding archive of past attempts. According to Mendelian principles of controlled inheritance, we introduce Mendel Gödel Machine (MGM). In addition to the general single-trajectory clonal mutation, MGM includes two new types of self-modification that better utilizes evidences accumulated: the reaction-norm mutation edits an agent based on its trajectories on multiple tasks simultaneously, and the cross-lineage hybridization edits an agent using the trajectory of a reference agent from another lineage on the same task. Under an additive fitness landscape model, we prove theoretically and demonstrate via controlled surrogate simulation that the new strategies facilitate a faster and better convergence over single-trajectory baselines. Experiments on SWE-bench and Polyglot confirm MGM's consistent improvement in performance, efficiency, and generalizability.</summary>
    <category term="cs.AI" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <category term="cs.LG" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <published>2026-08-07T16:46:44Z</published>
    <arxiv:comment>Project Page at https://reallcz.github.io/MGM; Code at https://github.com/RealLcz/MGM</arxiv:comment>
    <arxiv:primary_category term="cs.AI"/>
    <author>
      <name>Changzhi Liu</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Yilun Liu</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Sikuan Yan</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Volker Tresp</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Yunpu Ma</name>
    </author>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.05144v2</id>
    <title>Argus: A General-Purpose Agentic Reasoning Runtime for Long-Horizon Tasks</title>
    <updated>2026-08-07T16:35:04Z</updated>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.05144v2" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2608.05144v2" rel="related" type="application/pdf" title="pdf"/>
    <summary>Long-horizon reasoning requires an agentic runtime that can persist when evidence supports its current approach and pivot when measurements reveal failure, hidden constraints, or a misspecified objective. We present Argus, a persistent, self-evolving runtime in which Manager, Planner, Engineer, and Reviewer execute bounded missions over durable project state. Argus separates stable user intent from operational objectives, constraints, and verification criteria, and admits memories, skills, procedures, verifiers, routing decisions, and rejected routes only after role-owned review and, when available, task-native verification. Model weights remain fixed; self-evolution occurs through persistent runtime state and control policy, with autonomous execution between operator-owned escalation points. Across seven GPT-5.5 benchmark arenas, Argus achieves about 78% on SWE-Bench Pro versus 59% for Direct Copilot while using 1.41 times the aggregate tokens. After verification-gated self-evolution, mature SWE-Bench waves use 21% fewer solve-input tokens and 15% less active workflow time per task than startup waves, while recording 34 verifier recoveries and 22 strict review-loop rescues. Argus also reaches 76.8% on AARRI-Bench and a 28.0-point gap on mathematical data synthesis, with competitive GPU-kernel and language-model-training results. Beyond benchmarks, an optimized RWKV6 kernel was merged upstream; a multi-day mathematics campaign retained falsified routes and proof-backed frontier updates; and six paper pipelines completed 254 missions with 16 stage rollbacks. These results show that a fixed-weight, self-evolving harness can revise, recover, and accumulate verified approaches while producing structured trajectories for future supervised and reinforcement learning.</summary>
    <category term="cs.AI" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <published>2026-08-05T17:58:58Z</published>
    <arxiv:primary_category term="cs.AI"/>
    <author>
      <name>Boxiu Li</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Zimo Wen</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Yijia Fan</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Chuan Wen</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Fan Yang</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Hangxi Guo</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Jiaao Wu</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Jiachen Zhang</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Junxiang Lei</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Mukai Li</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Ruize Tang</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Runjing Gu</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Shibo Hu</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Sihan Chen</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Sufeng Guo</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Wanbo Zhang</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Xian Zhang</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Xiaoyu Chen</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Xuanhe Zhou</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Xuyao Huang</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Yifei Gao</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Yifei Shen</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Yilin Chen</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Yuheng Wu</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Yuzhe Zhang</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Zelong Zhao</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Zhijie Deng</name>
    </author>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.06811v1</id>
    <title>Coupling Planning with Episodic Memory in LLM Agents for Software Issue Resolution</title>
    <updated>2026-08-07T05:05:05Z</updated>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.06811v1" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2608.06811v1" rel="related" type="application/pdf" title="pdf"/>
    <summary>Resolving a real software issue with a large language model (LLM) agent is a long repair episode, often tens to hundreds of steps spanning exploration, hypothesis, implementation, and verification. Success depends on both the base model's local reasoning and the agent's ability to maintain an evolving plan and remember observations across phases. Existing repository-level agents typically strengthen planning or memory in isolation, leaving long trajectories vulnerable to stale evidence, repeated failed edits, and verification inferred from the agent's own claims instead of execution evidence. We present PMCoder, an issue-resolution agent that couples a hierarchical phase planner with episodic memory. The coupling is bidirectional: the current plan phase conditions memory retrieval, while memory-derived trajectory statistics inform stuck detection and replanning. When available, issue-reproduction verdicts ground verification progress in execution evidence rather than self-reported completion. On SWE-bench Verified, PMCoder resolves an average of $25$ more cases ($+5.0$pp) than a harness-matched baseline, with gains persisting even where the reproduction gate never fires. Further Verified-500 evaluations show the same positive direction across Claude Haiku 4.5, DeepSeek-V4-Flash, and an OpenHands port, with at least $14$ additional resolved cases ($+2.8$pp). Separately, evaluation on TerminalWorld's official sample suggests that the plan-memory substrate transfers beyond issue reports. Ablation and trajectory analyses show where the gains come from: coupling planning and memory outperforms either component alone and reduces repeated failed actions, empty-patch exits, and context-window exhaustion.</summary>
    <category term="cs.SE" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <category term="cs.AI" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <published>2026-08-07T05:05:05Z</published>
    <arxiv:comment>12 pages, 5 figures</arxiv:comment>
    <arxiv:primary_category term="cs.SE"/>
    <author>
      <name>Jiahao Zhang</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Yifan Zhang</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Yu Huang</name>
    </author>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.12147v3</id>
    <title>From Plan to Action: How Well Do Agents Follow the Plan?</title>
    <updated>2026-08-07T02:49:47Z</updated>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.12147v3" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2604.12147v3" rel="related" type="application/pdf" title="pdf"/>
    <summary>Agents are commonly instructed to follow a task-specific plan for guidance. However, it is unknown to what extent agents actually follow instructed plans. Without such an analysis, determining the extent agents comply with a given plan, it is impossible to assess whether a solution was reached through correct strategic reasoning or through other means, e.g., data contamination or overfitting to a benchmark. This paper presents the first extensive, systematic analysis of plan compliance in programming agents, examining 21,120 trajectories from SWE-agent across four LLMs on SWE-bench Verified and SWE-bench Pro under eight plan variations. Without an explicit plan, agents fall back on internalized workflows during training, which are often incomplete, overfit, or inconsistently applied. Providing the standard plan improves issue resolution, and we observe that periodic plan reminders can mitigate plan violations and improve task success. A subpar plan hurts performance even more than no plan at all. Surprisingly, inserting additional task-relevant phases in the early stage can degrade performance, particularly when these phases do not align with the model's internal problem-solving strategy. These findings call for fine-tuning paradigms that teach models to follow instructed plans, rather than encoding task-specific plans in them, so that they reason and act adaptively, rather than memorizing workflows.</summary>
    <category term="cs.SE" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <category term="cs.AI" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <category term="cs.CL" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <published>2026-04-13T23:54:55Z</published>
    <arxiv:primary_category term="cs.SE"/>
    <author>
      <name>Shuyang Liu</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Saman Dehghan</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Jatin Ganhotra</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Martin Hirzel</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Reyhaneh Jabbarvand</name>
    </author>
    <arxiv:doi>10.1145/3832783.3834400</arxiv:doi>
    <link rel="related" href="https://doi.org/10.1145/3832783.3834400" title="doi"/>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.06701v1</id>
    <title>Online Monitoring and Corrective Steering of Programming Agents</title>
    <updated>2026-08-07T01:54:52Z</updated>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.06701v1" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2608.06701v1" rel="related" type="application/pdf" title="pdf"/>
    <summary>Fixing GitHub issues in large-scale projects is a long-horizon task, especially when a fix requires changes across multiple locations or the issue description lacks the information needed to localize and repair it. As a result, agents traverse long trajectories that are prone to inefficiency and error: they drift away from their intended plan, repeat failed actions, or terminate without a working patch. This paper proposes LivePlan to monitor, detect, and correct such behavioral inefficiencies and drifts in real time. LivePlan decouples judging from advising: a deterministic, rule-based monitor examines general signals over the trajectory to detect issues without invoking an LLM, and only when an issue is detected does it consult an advisor LLM for a high-level, next-step correction. This design avoids the misleading re-planning and costly interventions of prior approaches. We implement LivePlan on top of SWE-agent and evaluate it using five LLMs (three as executor agents and two as advisors) across SWE-bench Verified and SWE-bench Pro. Compared to vanilla SWE-agent, LivePlan notably improves issue resolution rates, achieving consistent gains of up to 15.2% (average: 9.9%), while incurring only an additional cost of $0.08 per instance. The additional solutions concentrate on medium and hard instances. LivePlan consistently outperforms alternative approaches in resolution rate, with minimal regression on already successful runs and new successes on problems that no baseline solves.</summary>
    <category term="cs.SE" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <category term="cs.AI" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <category term="cs.CL" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <category term="cs.LG" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <published>2026-08-07T01:54:52Z</published>
    <arxiv:primary_category term="cs.SE"/>
    <author>
      <name>Shuyang Liu</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Saman Dehghan</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Ji Young Kim</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Jatin Ganhotra</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Martin Hirzel</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Reyhaneh Jabbarvand</name>
    </author>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.06352v1</id>
    <title>CalibForge: Adversarial Solver Calibration for Scaling Learnable Terminal Tasks</title>
    <updated>2026-08-06T17:53:18Z</updated>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.06352v1" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2608.06352v1" rel="related" type="application/pdf" title="pdf"/>
    <summary>Training terminal agents requires executable and verifiable tasks that are not merely solvable, but appropriately challenging for learning. Executable validation establishes feasibility, yet does not reveal how a task behaves relative to a given solver setting. In this paper, we present CalibForge, an autonomous terminal-task synthesis system that uses verified solver behavior to revise candidate tasks through adversarial solver calibration. Multi-solver calibration targets disagreement within a heterogeneous solver pool, whereas contrastive solver calibration targets a designated strong-pass/weak-fail relation; both operationalize a solver-relative learnable zone anchored in demonstrated solvability. Using CalibForge, we construct 5,431 calibrated terminal tasks. Our ablations show that both strategies yield more effective supervision than authoring and validation alone or ordinary single-solver feedback. Models trained on the full collection achieve 32.58% and 47.57% on Terminal-Bench 2.0. The largest improvements over the corresponding base model reach 24.71 percentage points on Terminal-Bench 2.0, 27.68 points on SWE-bench Pro, and 30.04 points on Doc2Repo. Together, these results support solver-relative learnability as a practical target for constructing effective and transferable agent training data.</summary>
    <category term="cs.LG" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <category term="cs.CL" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <published>2026-08-06T17:53:18Z</published>
    <arxiv:comment>Dataset: https://huggingface.co/datasets/AweAI-Team/CalibForge. Repository: https://github.com/AweAI-Team/CalibForge</arxiv:comment>
    <arxiv:primary_category term="cs.LG"/>
    <author>
      <name>Fanzhe Meng</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Guoxin Chen</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Jiale Zhao</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Shuang Sun</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Zhiyu Lin</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Wayne Xin Zhao</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Ruihua Song</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Ji-Rong Wen</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Kai Jia</name>
    </author>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.06346v1</id>
    <title>TRAJDEBUG: Tracing Error Lifecycle to Identify Critical Failures in Long-Horizon Agent Trajectories</title>
    <updated>2026-08-06T17:51:20Z</updated>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.06346v1" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2608.06346v1" rel="related" type="application/pdf" title="pdf"/>
    <summary>LLM-based agentic systems have shown remarkable capabilities in complex domains, while suffering from cascading errors and difficulty in debugging. Critical error detection aims to locate the earliest error step in a failed trajectory that is responsible for the final failure. However, progress faces two main challenges. First, long trajectories make it difficult to identify individual errors, since the evidence for judging a step may be scattered across distant instructions, observations, and prior context. Second, failed trajectories often contain multiple local errors with different downstream effects, only some of which remain responsible for the final failure. In this work, we propose TrajDebug, an error-lifecycle tracing framework that addresses long-trajectory error discovery with multi-granularity history compression and evidence-based error identification, and supports critical attribution by tracing each error's resolution status and terminal impact. We further construct TrajErrBench, a benchmark of 486 manually annotated failed trajectories from Tau2Bench and SWE-Bench Pro, covering realistic tool-use and coding scenarios. Experiments across diverse agent benchmarks show that TrajDebug achieves the best overall performance over existing baselines, and application studies further demonstrate that its diagnoses provide actionable feedback for improving downstream agent success. We will release the codes and data to facilitate further research.</summary>
    <category term="cs.AI" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <published>2026-08-06T17:51:20Z</published>
    <arxiv:primary_category term="cs.AI"/>
    <author>
      <name>Yunjia Qi</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Zehua Yin</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Xintong Shi</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Hao Peng</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Songyuanyi Lu</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Yixian Liu</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Richeng Xuan</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Yuhong Liu</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Zhichao Hu</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Xiaozhi Wang</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Lei Hou</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Bin Xu</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Juanzi Li</name>
    </author>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.05886v1</id>
    <title>CodeGrep: An RL-Trained Retrieval Agent for LLM Coding Agents</title>
    <updated>2026-08-06T11:07:42Z</updated>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.05886v1" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2608.05886v1" rel="related" type="application/pdf" title="pdf"/>
    <summary>Modern LLM coding agents such as Claude Code and OpenHands share a common inefficiency: they spend much of their token budget finding the file to patch, rather than patching it. On SWE-Bench Verified, a 30B OpenHands agent averages 23 rounds and 631K tokens per resolved issue, with many calls spent on grep, glob, and view_file during repository exploration. We introduce CodeGrep, a 14B retrieval agent trained end-to-end with GRPO to issue multi-turn parallel grep, glob, and read tool calls and return candidate files to a frozen downstream coding agent.
  On all 500 SWE-Bench Verified instances, CodeGrep preserves resolve rate while substantially improving efficiency: 27.0% versus 25.8% for the no-retrieval baseline, with 15% fewer rounds and 19% fewer tokens on resolved instances. Across retrievers, downstream utility follows a precision threshold: BM25 with precision 0.375 degrades the agent, Jina with precision 0.445 is neutral, and CodeGrep with precision 0.677 crosses the threshold at which retrieval begins to reduce rollout cost. To enable this study, we mine supervision from 67K open-source agent trajectories using CATM and build a Git-worktree environment for multi-turn agent RL. In our setting, applying the efficiency signal at the advantage layer rather than the reward layer reduces KL drift and translates cleanly into downstream efficiency. We will release the model, training pipeline, RL environment, and evaluation harnesses.</summary>
    <category term="cs.SE" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <category term="cs.AI" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <published>2026-08-06T11:07:42Z</published>
    <arxiv:primary_category term="cs.SE"/>
    <author>
      <name>Wuya Chen</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Yihao yang</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Yang Cao</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Yue Lin</name>
    </author>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.01518v2</id>
    <title>Probe to Generate: Program Variant-Guided Test Augmentation for Repository-Level Repair Benchmarks</title>
    <updated>2026-08-06T02:46:05Z</updated>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.01518v2" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2604.01518v2" rel="related" type="application/pdf" title="pdf"/>
    <summary>Test-based benchmarks such as SWE-bench have become a standard basis for evaluating automated issue resolution agents, deeming a patch correct if it passes a provided regression test suite. In practice, weak test suites can admit plausible but semantically incorrect patches, inflating reported agent performance. We present \tool, a test augmentation framework that uses semantically modified program variants as behavioral probes to identify and close gaps in benchmark test suites. Variants of the reference patch that survive the original tests reveal under-constrained behaviors, which then guide targeted regression test generation. Each generated test is retained only if it passes on the reference patch, fails on at least one surviving variant, and remains robust under behavior-preserving transformations. On SWE-bench Verified, 77% of instances admit at least one surviving variant. \tool generates 1,014 validated tests across 211 instances, increasing patch-region line and branch coverage by 10.8 and 9.5 percentage points. Re-evaluating the top-10 repair agents with the augmented suites reduces resolved rates by 4.2%-9.0%, showing that many previously accepted patches exploit benchmark test gaps rather than fully satisfying the intended repair semantics. These findings demonstrate that benchmark evaluation is not solely a patch-generation problem but also a test-strength problem.</summary>
    <category term="cs.SE" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <published>2026-04-02T01:13:40Z</published>
    <arxiv:comment>Accepted at the 41st IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE 2026)</arxiv:comment>
    <arxiv:primary_category term="cs.SE"/>
    <author>
      <name>Chenglin Li</name>
      <arxiv:affiliation>Peter</arxiv:affiliation>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Yisen Xu</name>
      <arxiv:affiliation>Peter</arxiv:affiliation>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Zehao Wang</name>
      <arxiv:affiliation>Peter</arxiv:affiliation>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Shin Hwei Tan</name>
      <arxiv:affiliation>Peter</arxiv:affiliation>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name> Tse-Hsun</name>
      <arxiv:affiliation>Peter</arxiv:affiliation>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name> Chen</name>
    </author>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.04804v1</id>
    <title>Scrouting: Cost-Aware Routing of Coding Agents by Scouting the Repository First</title>
    <updated>2026-08-05T13:11:31Z</updated>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.04804v1" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2608.04804v1" rel="related" type="application/pdf" title="pdf"/>
    <summary>Frontier language models can resolve repository-level software issues, but each attempt is expensive, and existing routers select a model from the issue text alone. We present SuperScout, which routes after scouting the repository: a 7B searcher, SuperScout-7B, first explores the repository and produces a structured handoff whose reproduction claims are sandbox-verified, with false claims stripped before delivery. The searcher's hidden states, together with the task text, then feed a resume-based router that dispatches the task to one of four frontier fixers. Adding a new fixer requires no retraining. On the full Python slice of SWE-bench Pro (266 tasks) under the benchmark's official capped budget tier, SuperScout matches the best single model's solve rate (159 of 266 for SuperScout, 158 for the best model) at about a fifth of the total cost per solve, and the reported configuration sits above the random traffic-splitting baseline. A no-router ablation, always the cheapest fixer with the handoff, ties the routed system on this benchmark, so the handoff rather than the routing decision carries the result. A paired calibration study points to the mechanism: the handoff appears to redistribute rather than add solving ability, lifting the three cheaper fixers while slightly hurting the strongest, though at $N=99$ the per-fixer effects are directional only; the searcher's hidden states improve cost routing on the calibration labels while the handoff's own text does not. The searcher's compute adds less than half a cent of GPU time per task.</summary>
    <category term="cs.SE" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <category term="cs.AI" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <published>2026-08-05T13:11:31Z</published>
    <arxiv:primary_category term="cs.SE"/>
    <author>
      <name>Ishaan Bhola</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Adithyan Krishnan</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Mukunda NS</name>
    </author>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.04336v1</id>
    <title>COMPAS: Difficulty-Aware Joint Search for Optimizing Code Generation</title>
    <updated>2026-08-05T01:28:43Z</updated>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.04336v1" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2608.04336v1" rel="related" type="application/pdf" title="pdf"/>
    <summary>Code generation systems make each LLM call with a model, a prompt, and decoding settings. However, existing optimization methods usually tune only part of these choices or use one fixed configuration for all tasks: global optimizers search one configuration for all tasks, routers choose only a model, and prompt optimizers keep the model and decoding settings fixed. This leaves their joint, group-specific interactions unclear. We therefore examine how these choices interact and observe that prompts and decoding settings interact, tuning effects vary by model, and the best configuration varies by task difficulty. Guided by these observations, we introduce COMPAS (Code-generation Optimization over Models, Prompts, And Decoding Settings), a difficulty-aware method that learns group-specific quality-cost fronts through low-cost model selection and joint prompt-decoding search, then routes each test task to its matching front online without further search. Under a matched search budget on LiveCodeBench, COMPAS improves pass@1 from 45.9% for the best baseline to 52.8% while reducing cost from $36.57 to $4.92. This also transfers to repository-level code generation on SWE-bench, resolving 76.0% of tasks versus 70.0% for the best baseline. Code and the reproducibility artifact are available at https://github.com/gjz78910/COMPAS.</summary>
    <category term="cs.SE" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <category term="cs.AI" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <published>2026-08-05T01:28:43Z</published>
    <arxiv:primary_category term="cs.SE"/>
    <author>
      <name>Jingzhi Gong</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Jie M. Zhang</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Gunel Jahangirova</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Dong Huang</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Mohammad Reza Mousavi</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Mark Harman</name>
    </author>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2509.25465v2</id>
    <title>BloomAPR: A Bloom's Taxonomy-based Framework for Assessing the Capabilities of LLM-Powered APR Solutions</title>
    <updated>2026-08-04T18:02:25Z</updated>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.25465v2" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2509.25465v2" rel="related" type="application/pdf" title="pdf"/>
    <summary>Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have accelerated the development of AI-driven automated program repair (APR) solutions. However, these solutions are typically evaluated using static benchmarks such as Defects4J and SWE-bench, which suffer from two key limitations: (1) the risk of data contamination, potentially inflating evaluation results due to overlap with LLM training data, and (2) limited ability to assess the APR capabilities in dynamic and diverse contexts. In this paper, we introduced BloomAPR, a novel dynamic evaluation framework grounded in Bloom's Taxonomy. Our framework offers a structured approach to assess the cognitive capabilities of LLM-powered APR solutions across progressively complex reasoning levels. Using Defects4J as a case study, we evaluated two state-of-the-art LLM-powered APR solutions, ChatRepair and CigaR, under three different LLMs: GPT-3.5-Turbo, Llama-3.1, and StarCoder-2. Our findings show that while these solutions exhibit basic reasoning skills and effectively memorize bug-fixing patterns (fixing up to 81.57% of bugs at the Remember layer), their performance increases with synthetically generated bugs (up to 60.66% increase at the Understand layer). However, they perform worse on minor syntactic changes (fixing up to 43.32% at the Apply layer), and they struggle to repair similar bugs when injected into real-world projects (solving only 13.46% to 41.34% bugs at the Analyze layer). These results underscore the urgent need for evolving benchmarks and provide a foundation for more trustworthy evaluation of LLM-powered software engineering solutions.</summary>
    <category term="cs.SE" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <published>2025-09-29T20:16:11Z</published>
    <arxiv:comment>22 pages, 7 figures, Manuscript submitted to ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology</arxiv:comment>
    <arxiv:primary_category term="cs.SE"/>
    <author>
      <name>Yinghang Ma</name>
      <arxiv:affiliation>Jack</arxiv:affiliation>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Jiho Shin</name>
      <arxiv:affiliation>Jack</arxiv:affiliation>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Leuson Da Silva</name>
      <arxiv:affiliation>Jack</arxiv:affiliation>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Zhen Ming</name>
      <arxiv:affiliation>Jack</arxiv:affiliation>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name> Jiang</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Song Wang</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Foutse Khomh</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Shin Hwei Tan</name>
    </author>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.28587v2</id>
    <title>PAIChecker: Uncovering and Checking PR-Issue Misalignment in SWE-Bench-Like Benchmarks</title>
    <updated>2026-08-04T09:26:35Z</updated>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.28587v2" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2607.28587v2" rel="related" type="application/pdf" title="pdf"/>
    <summary>SWE-bench-like benchmarks are widely used for evaluating LLM's issue resolution capability. They typically follow a common construction pipeline: each PR (Pull Request) is paired with its linked issue by extracting issue references from the PR description; the issue description is used as the problem statement, and the PR patch serves as the test oracle. However, due to the inherent complexity of developing and maintaining large repositories, such PR-Issue pairings are often misaligned in practice. In this work, we systematically study SWE-bench Verified instances, finding that 13.6% exhibit misalignment across five patterns in eleven fine-grained scenarios. To enable reliable and scalable construction of those benchmarks in the future, we propose PAIChecker, a multi-agent system for checking PR-Issue misalignment in SWE-bench-like benchmarks. Specifically, PAIChecker adopts a three-phase design that combines specific pattern identification, cross-agent label synthesis, and code-level validation, thereby enabling more accurate, generalizable, and progressively verified detection. Experiments on SWE-Gym and SWE-bench Multilingual show that PAIchecker achieves the best performance across all four LLM backbones, reaching up to 92.12% and 91.67% binary accuracy, respectively.</summary>
    <category term="cs.SE" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <category term="cs.AI" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <published>2026-07-30T17:42:44Z</published>
    <arxiv:comment>Accepted at the 41st IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE 2026). Github Repo: https://github.com/manyiResearch/PAIChecker</arxiv:comment>
    <arxiv:primary_category term="cs.SE"/>
    <author>
      <name>Manyi Wang</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Junjielong Xu</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Pinjia He</name>
    </author>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.03222v1</id>
    <title>Fail-Fast, Restart-Smart: Early Failure Prediction and Restart for SWE Agentic Tasks</title>
    <updated>2026-08-04T06:55:46Z</updated>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.03222v1" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2608.03222v1" rel="related" type="application/pdf" title="pdf"/>
    <summary>Software engineering (SWE) agents resolve repository-level issues through long trajectories that grow increasingly expensive as context accumulates. Failed runs tend to be longer and exhibit redundant exploration or looping, suggesting that some failures may be detectable before completion. Early termination, however, risks interrupting trajectories that would otherwise succeed; conversely, an unsuccessful trajectory may still contain useful repository edits. We present FailFast-RestartSmart, a two-stage controller for a single active trajectory. FailFast is a lightweight 0.6B monitor trained with terminal and dense fail-to-pass supervision to predict failure from observable prefixes without policy logits or hidden states. Upon an alarm, RestartSmart launches a fresh same-policy rollout without prior prompt history and offers the interrupted repository diff as an optional overlay that the agent may inspect, apply, or discard. On SWE-bench Verified, a monitor trained solely on Qwen3.6-27B trajectories transfers to three other policies, including a closed-API model, and saves 14.6%-20.4% of execution tokens at a target 5% false-positive rate; on Qwen3.6-27B, its 20.4% saving exceeds the 12.5% achieved by our per-step AgentStop adaptation. At a target 25% false-positive rate, RestartSmart raises Qwen3.6-27B resolution from 66.6% to 71.8%, whereas cold restart reaches only 66.8%. Together, these results support early termination with sequential same-policy recovery.</summary>
    <category term="cs.SE" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <category term="cs.AI" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <published>2026-08-04T06:55:46Z</published>
    <arxiv:primary_category term="cs.SE"/>
    <author>
      <name>Chenyu Wang</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Yunbo Lyu</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Junda He</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Zhou Yang</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Chenxing Zhong</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Yaniv Harel</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>David Lo</name>
    </author>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.02499v1</id>
    <title>SWE-Touch: Benchmarking Coding Agents When Users Touch the Code</title>
    <updated>2026-08-03T17:03:19Z</updated>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.02499v1" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2608.02499v1" rel="related" type="application/pdf" title="pdf"/>
    <summary>Real-world software development requires coding agents to operate in shared workspaces where users may inspect and modify code during an ongoing task, yet existing repository-level benchmarks typically evaluate agents working alone or restrict user participation to messages. This leads us to ask: how do coding agents understand and respond to code changes in a shared workspace? We introduce SWE-Touch, a framework that stress-tests this setting through validated Counter-Edits: plausible edits to task-relevant code that conflict with task completion. SWE-Touch mines task-critical regions from multiple repair trajectories, uses a separate User Patch Generator to construct the edits, and injects them with contextual user messages when agents reach the relevant code. We evaluate nine coding models on SWE-bench Verified, with additional experiments on longer-horizon tasks from SWE-Bench Pro and DeepSWE. Counter-Edit lowers average resolve rate by 7.7 percentage points on SWE-bench Verified, with degradation also persisting on both longer-horizon benchmarks. Trajectory analysis links these failures to limited awareness of the evolving workspace: agents may retain conflicting code or replace it without sufficiently re-inspecting the repository and validating the revised code with targeted tests. These findings show that strong autonomous performance does not yet ensure the state awareness and adaptive behavior needed for shared-workspace collaboration, and point to detecting workspace changes, reconciling conflicting edits with the task, and verifying the affected behavior as key capabilities for future optimization.</summary>
    <category term="cs.SE" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <category term="cs.AI" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <category term="cs.CL" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <published>2026-08-03T17:03:19Z</published>
    <arxiv:comment>Preprint. Our code is available at https://github.com/Trae1ounG/SWE-Touch</arxiv:comment>
    <arxiv:primary_category term="cs.SE"/>
    <author>
      <name>Yuqiao Tan</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Jinxiang Meng</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Fangyu Lei</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Minzheng Wang</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Shizhu He</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Jun Zhao</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Kang Liu</name>
    </author>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2602.06090v2</id>
    <title>SVRepair: Structured Visual Reasoning for Automated Program Repair</title>
    <updated>2026-08-03T12:05:20Z</updated>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.06090v2" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2602.06090v2" rel="related" type="application/pdf" title="pdf"/>
    <summary>Large language models (LLMs) have recently been applied to Automated Program Repair (APR), yet most existing approaches remain unimodal and fail to use diagnostic signals contained in visual artifacts such as screenshots and control-flow graphs. In practice, many bug reports convey critical information visually (e.g., layout breakage or missing widgets), but directly using such dense visual inputs often causes context loss and noise, making it difficult for MLLMs to ground visual observations into precise fault localization and executable patches. To bridge this semantic gap, we propose \textbf{SVRepair}, a multimodal APR framework with Structured Visual Representation (SVR). SVRepair first fine-tunes a vision-language model, SVR, to uniformly transform heterogeneous visual artifacts into a \emph{semantic scene graph} that captures GUI elements and their structural relations (e.g., hierarchy), providing normalized, code-relevant context for downstream repair. Building on the graph, SVRepair drives a coding agent to localize faults and synthesize patches, and further introduces an iterative visual-artifact segmentation strategy that progressively narrows the input to bug-centered regions to suppress irrelevant context and reduce hallucinations. Across primary repository-level APR benchmarks, SVRepair resolves \textbf{186/517} SWE-Bench M instances (\textbf{35.98\%} over all instances; \textbf{36.47\%} over submitted runs) and \textbf{4/19} visual OmniGIRL instances (\textbf{21.05\%}). On supplementary structured multimodal code reasoning benchmarks, SVRepair reaches \textbf{38.02\%} on MMCode and \textbf{95.73\%} on CodeVision. Code is available at https://github.com/codefuse-ai/CodeFuse-SVR.</summary>
    <category term="cs.SE" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <category term="cs.AI" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <category term="cs.CV" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <published>2026-02-05T06:26:46Z</published>
    <arxiv:primary_category term="cs.SE"/>
    <author>
      <name>Jincheng Wang</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Liwei Luo</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Xiaoxuan Tang</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Jingxuan Xu</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Sheng Zhou</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Dajun Chen</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Wei Jiang</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Yong Li</name>
    </author>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.01918v1</id>
    <title>HarnessCompass: Guiding Automatic Harness Evolution toward Generalizable and Effective Agent Harnesses</title>
    <updated>2026-08-03T08:51:50Z</updated>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.01918v1" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2608.01918v1" rel="related" type="application/pdf" title="pdf"/>
    <summary>Harness design plays a critical role in agent performance by shaping how large language models (LLMs) perceive, reason over, and act within executable environments. Recent work has proposed automatic harness evolution, which iteratively improves the harness from agent--environment interactions. However, existing methods often overfit to the evolution tasks, rely exclusively on trajectory-derived signals, and optimize harness components jointly, causing interference across components. We propose HarnessCompass, a novel automatic harness evolution framework built around constrained evolution, proactive feedback, and component-wise optimization. HarnessCompass first enforces global constraints on evolution, restricting modifications to task-agnostic harness changes that generalize beyond the evolution tasks. It then augments trajectory-derived evidence with proactive first-person feedback from the agent about harness usage, yielding richer signals for evolution. Finally, it decouples the optimization of different harness components before consolidating them into a unified harness, reducing cross-component interference while preserving component synergy. On SWE-bench Verified with GPT-5.4, HarnessCompass improves Pass@1 from 54\% to 66\% in only 5 evolution iterations, outperforming AHE in both effectiveness and evolution efficiency. In addition, the evolved harness transfers effectively to held-out tasks and other models, demonstrating substantially stronger generalization than prior automatic harness evolution methods.</summary>
    <category term="cs.LG" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <category term="cs.CL" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <published>2026-08-03T08:51:50Z</published>
    <arxiv:primary_category term="cs.LG"/>
    <author>
      <name>Luan Zhang</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Ruochen Zhou</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Dandan Song</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Zhengyu Chen</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Yuhang Tian</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Jun Yang</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Huipeng Ma</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Chenhao Li</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Guangyuan Feng</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Xudong Li</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Yizhou Jin</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Yan Xu</name>
    </author>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.01604v1</id>
    <title>Post-Training on Office Work Improves Software Engineering: A Behavioral Account of Cross-Domain Transfer</title>
    <updated>2026-08-03T02:22:02Z</updated>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.01604v1" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2608.01604v1" rel="related" type="application/pdf" title="pdf"/>
    <summary>Long-horizon tasks require agents to maintain coherent state and goals across nested and branching work. We call this capability goal-directed execution (GDE): the repeated application of four behaviors, namely selecting goals, constructing task-relevant state, maintaining fidelity to higher-level objectives, and verifying completion against the environment. We hypothesize that long-horizon post-training strengthens these behaviors across domains. We test this by post-training Qwen3.5-122B-A10B on 363 Long-Horizon Multi-Tool Agent (LHMTA) tasks drawn from office workflows. The collection contained no software-engineering tasks, yet the model's pass@1 improved by 5.8 points on SWE-Bench Pro. Matched trajectory analysis shows gains in all four GDE behaviors in both office workflows and software repositories. Aggregate SWE-Bench Pro statistics showed related changes in information gathering, implementation, and verification. Together, the results support a behavioral interpretation in which long-horizon post-training changed how the model organized and applied knowledge across tasks, with effects extending beyond the training domain.</summary>
    <category term="cs.AI" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <category term="cs.SE" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <published>2026-08-03T02:22:02Z</published>
    <arxiv:comment>20 pages, 8 figures, 5 tables</arxiv:comment>
    <arxiv:primary_category term="cs.AI"/>
    <author>
      <name>Logan Ritchie</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Sushant Mehta</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Liudas Panavas</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Edwin Chen</name>
    </author>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.00881v1</id>
    <title>AOSpec: Action and Observation Co-Speculation for Low-Latency Agent Serving</title>
    <updated>2026-08-01T22:06:52Z</updated>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.00881v1" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2608.00881v1" rel="related" type="application/pdf" title="pdf"/>
    <summary>Large language model agents increasingly act through stateful tools, yet model generation and environment execution remain serialized at every step. As decoding accelerates, tool execution becomes a growing bottleneck. Existing action- or observation-only speculation leaves much of this latency exposed: value is concentrated in a few slow calls, some outcomes emerge only through execution, and longer lookahead typically requires an increasingly unlikely chain of action predictions. We present AOSpec, a lossless framework that co-speculates actions and observations across the full agent-environment loop. Expected Value Decoding (EVD) directs observation speculation toward outcomes with the greatest expected latency benefit, optimizing expected time hidden rather than hit rate. For outcomes only execution can reveal, AOSpec launches latency-critical target actions in isolated forks that contain their effects, while Joint Action-State Verification (JASV) verifies both the action and its origin state against committed execution before reuse. JASV recasts long-horizon action dependency from full-chain prediction into target action-state verification, breaking the lookahead--accuracy tradeoff and unlocking long-range overlap without sacrificing serial semantics. Across Terminal-Bench serving settings spanning four harnesses, five actor models, and five serving speeds, AOSpec outperforms every practical baseline, reducing mean end-to-end latency by 11.8-32.5% and p99 latency by up to 42.8%. Its gains increase as decoding accelerates, and its observation model transfers from Terminal-Bench to SWE-bench Verified without retraining.</summary>
    <category term="cs.LG" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <published>2026-08-01T22:06:52Z</published>
    <arxiv:primary_category term="cs.LG"/>
    <author>
      <name>Hao Mark Chen</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Jinnan Guo</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Wayne Luk</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Hongxiang Fan</name>
    </author>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.00808v1</id>
    <title>Turning Interaction History into Execution State: A Runtime Layer for Long-Horizon Coding Agents</title>
    <updated>2026-08-01T18:25:00Z</updated>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.00808v1" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2608.00808v1" rel="related" type="application/pdf" title="pdf"/>
    <summary>Long-horizon coding agents accumulate hundreds of actions and observations in their trajectories, yet nothing in this record indicates which observations still describe the repository as it currently stands. Before every decision, the model must implicitly infer the execution status from raw history, and when this inference falls short, the agent acts on outdated file contents or re-executes work whose results are still valid. We propose Ledger, a deterministic runtime layer that distills an agent's completed interactions into an explicit execution state: what has been observed, what has been modified, and what has been attempted. Ledger keeps this state in an online execution ledger and applies it at two boundaries of every step. Before the model acts, an inform path appends a compact runtime state view to the prompt; before a proposed command runs, a govern path checks it against the ledger, returning still-valid earlier results in place of re-execution and flagging likely-redundant repetition. The layer adds no language-model calls and wraps an otherwise unmodified agent. Across all 500 SWE-bench Verified instances, Ledger raises Pass@1 from 56.2% to 64.2% with GPT-5 mini and from 75.8% to 81.0% with MiniMax M2.5, while cutting total cost by 28.9% and 31.8%. Attached to OpenAI Codex, it adds 3.4 percentage points of Pass@1 at 24.4% lower cost. Ablations attribute most of the resolution gain to govern and most of the efficiency gain to inform, with their combination performing best. What long-horizon agents lack, we conclude, is not a shorter view of their history but an explicit account of their own execution state.</summary>
    <category term="cs.SE" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <published>2026-08-01T18:25:00Z</published>
    <arxiv:primary_category term="cs.SE"/>
    <author>
      <name>Zehao Wang</name>
      <arxiv:affiliation>Peter</arxiv:affiliation>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Yisen Xu</name>
      <arxiv:affiliation>Peter</arxiv:affiliation>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Chenglin Li</name>
      <arxiv:affiliation>Peter</arxiv:affiliation>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Chao Peng</name>
      <arxiv:affiliation>Peter</arxiv:affiliation>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Bram Adams</name>
      <arxiv:affiliation>Peter</arxiv:affiliation>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Ahmed E. Hassan</name>
      <arxiv:affiliation>Peter</arxiv:affiliation>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name> Tse-Hsun</name>
      <arxiv:affiliation>Peter</arxiv:affiliation>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name> Chen</name>
    </author>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.00718v1</id>
    <title>Adversarial Attacks in Multi-Agent LLM Pipelines: Unveiling Structural Vulnerabilities in Agentic AI Architectures</title>
    <updated>2026-08-01T15:35:58Z</updated>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.00718v1" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2608.00718v1" rel="related" type="application/pdf" title="pdf"/>
    <summary>Multi-agent LLM pipelines orchestrate multiple specialized language model agents into structured workflows where intermediate outputs are passed across agents to solve complex tasks. This design introduces a security gap absent in single-agent settings: once an agent accepts adversarial content, it is propagated as trusted input throughout the pipeline. We argue that this vulnerability stems from the absence of boundary verification, a security primitive that enforces explicit validation of data as it crosses inter-agent boundaries, including content, identity, execution intent, and state integrity. Without such verification, modern pipelines embed implicit trust assumptions that are not adversarially robust, giving rise to structurally distinct attack surfaces (e.g., content injection, agent impersonation, plan deviation, and memory poisoning). Leveraging annotated production traces from the GAIA and SWE-Bench benchmark, we show that these vulnerabilities arise in benign deployments and largely evade existing evaluation frameworks. We further operationalize these failure modes within a controlled multi-agent setting and evaluate them across GPT-5-mini, Claude Sonnet 4.5, and Kimi K2.5 under identical pipeline configurations. The results reveal that attack success aligns with pipeline structure rather than model capability, indicating that adversarial vulnerability is fundamentally an architectural property and motivating a shift toward pipeline-level defenses.</summary>
    <category term="cs.CR" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <category term="cs.AI" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <category term="cs.MA" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <published>2026-08-01T15:35:58Z</published>
    <arxiv:comment>This paper has been accepted at the 2026 IEEE Global Communications Conference (GLOBECOM)</arxiv:comment>
    <arxiv:primary_category term="cs.CR"/>
    <author>
      <name>Faisal Haque Bappy</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Tahrim Hossain</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Tarannum Shaila Zaman</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Raiful Hasan</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Kamrul Hasan</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Tariqul Islam</name>
    </author>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.00181v1</id>
    <title>Cross-Benchmark Generalization in Long-Horizon Agents</title>
    <updated>2026-07-31T18:05:36Z</updated>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.00181v1" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2608.00181v1" rel="related" type="application/pdf" title="pdf"/>
    <summary>For reinforcement learning (RL) in self-contained environments, a policy can get rewards by exploiting environment-specific regularities (tool schemas, grader parsing, task templates) rather than by acquiring transferable skill, and an in-distribution holdout shares those regularities. We argue that the discriminating question is behavioral, namely how a trained agent acts, and that cross-benchmark transfer is the right place to look for it. We post-train an open-weight mixture-of-experts model (Qwen3.5-122B-A10B) on 363 long-horizon Model Context Protocol (MCP) tasks across 27 categories, using a two-stage SFT-then-RL pipeline. Toolathlon performance informed the initial base-family and SFT-teacher choices, but no external-benchmark task or grader entered training and no external score informed the reward, training hyperparameters, trained-checkpoint selection, or stopping. At greedy pass@1, the trained model improves over the base on five reported external evaluations: Toolathlon (+9.6 pp), $τ^2$-Bench (+5.3 pp), BFCL-V4 (+3.5 pp), SWE-Bench Pro (+5.8 pp), and Terminal-Bench 2 (+2.8 pp). Both software-engineering benchmarks improve despite the training collection containing no software-engineering tasks. An exploratory paired-trajectory analysis identifies four recurring behavioral differences (more careful local-goal formation, building goal-relevant working state, keeping parent goals stable through local repairs, and verifying completion) that appear in analogous forms across office workflows and code. These results provide descriptive evidence that long-horizon multi-tool post-training can change ways of working that transfer beyond its training domain.</summary>
    <category term="cs.SE" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <category term="cs.AI" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <published>2026-07-31T18:05:36Z</published>
    <arxiv:comment>Accepted at the COLM 2026 Workshop on Agent Behavior. 11 pages, 4 tables</arxiv:comment>
    <arxiv:primary_category term="cs.SE"/>
    <author>
      <name>Sushant Mehta</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Logan Ritchie</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Liudas Panavas</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Edwin Chen</name>
    </author>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.29658v1</id>
    <title>Reusing Past Repairs Through Hierarchical Trajectory Abstraction for Coding Agents</title>
    <updated>2026-07-31T17:38:48Z</updated>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.29658v1" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2607.29658v1" rel="related" type="application/pdf" title="pdf"/>
    <summary>Although LLM-driven repair agents can tackle complex, repository-level issues, they treat every issue independently and discard the procedural knowledge accumulated from previous repairs. We introduce STAIR, a framework that converts historical repair trajectories into hierarchical, reusable plans that can be adapted to steer future repairs. Each past trajectory is transformed into a multi-level tree that ranges from fine-grained diagnostic actions to high-level repair strategies, encoding experience at several granularities. When a new issue arrives, STAIR selects relevant plan nodes from multiple abstraction levels, tailors them into executable, issue-specific plans, and supplies them to the agent through its prompt. On SWE-bench Verified, STAIR integrated with Lingxi reaches 81.2% Pass@1 using MiniMax M2.5 and 79.2% using GPT-5. The generated plans also generalize across agents: without any code change, they lift the Pass@1 of a structurally different agent, mini-SWE-agent v2, from 75.8% to 81.0%. Ablation experiments further show that mixing multiple abstraction levels surpasses any single level and that raw, unabstracted trajectories transfer substantially worse.</summary>
    <category term="cs.SE" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <published>2026-07-31T17:38:48Z</published>
    <arxiv:comment>10 pages</arxiv:comment>
    <arxiv:primary_category term="cs.SE"/>
    <author>
      <name>Yisen Xu</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Jiayuan Zhou</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Ruiqi Pan</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Tse-Hsun Chen</name>
    </author>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.07545v1</id>
    <title>DarwinX: Evolving Agent Harnesses Through Natural Selection</title>
    <updated>2026-07-31T05:34:02Z</updated>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.07545v1" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2608.07545v1" rel="related" type="application/pdf" title="pdf"/>
    <summary>An LLM agent's capability depends not only on model weights but on its harness: prompts, tools, skills, and control flow. Self-improvement loops already edit harnesses, yet single-lineage search is path-dependent and local wins often regress other tasks. We introduce DarwinX, which treats self-evolution as selection over a population of harnesses with the model frozen: a preserve-and-extend contract admits only variants that extend coverage without regressing, an archive keeps alternative lineages for recombination, and failure-, teacher-, and self-derived evidence share one edit interface. Fitness comes from each benchmark's own verifier: no gold solutions, no hand-picked winners. Across four benchmarks that progressively separate the evolution signal from the test, one loop adds about 17 points on average: Terminal-Bench 2.1 rises +7.7 to 83.2% on a matched base and to the verified frontier at 84.7% on a stronger one; TerminalWorld's held-out split reaches 68.3%, ahead of every off-the-shelf agent; WebArena-Infinity real-task pass@1 rises from 43.5% to 93.0% audit-clean; and a Terminal-Bench 2.1 harness transfers unchanged to SWE-bench Verified. What evolves is general agent competence, not benchmark-specific patches, so it survives changes of task, verifier, and base model. A frozen model need not be a fixed agent: harness selection turns evaluation compute into durable capability.</summary>
    <category term="cs.NE" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <category term="cs.AI" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <category term="cs.LG" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <category term="cs.SE" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <published>2026-07-31T05:34:02Z</published>
    <arxiv:primary_category term="cs.NE"/>
    <author>
      <name>Yifan Zhang</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Yutong Dai</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Juntao Tan</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Luyu Yang</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Rishi Mullur</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Thai Hoang</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Zhiyuan Hu</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>James Zhu</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Phil Mui</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Silvio Savarese</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Ran Xu</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Zeyuan Chen</name>
    </author>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.28887v1</id>
    <title>To Add Is Machine, To Delete Is Human: Measuring and Mitigating Deletion Avoidance in LLM Code Editing</title>
    <updated>2026-07-30T23:07:51Z</updated>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.28887v1" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2607.28887v1" rel="related" type="application/pdf" title="pdf"/>
    <summary>Large language models increasingly write and repair production code, yet evidence is mounting that their test-passing patches leave codebases harder to maintain. We identify one concrete source: deletion avoidance, the systematic tendency to retain code that an intended edit requires removing. Across the five leading models on the official SWE-bench Verified leaderboard, deletion recall against the developer patch reaches at most 71.7% even on tasks all five solve, and models reach the right file for over 92% of required deletions but cut the exact line in under 52% of cases. Instead, 29.0% of passing patches wrap the targeted code in a guard or fallback, a pattern we call Guard-and-Go. Such patches pass because the original tests rarely check removal: when we retrofit 34 Verified tasks with tests that fail if the targeted code remains, four frontier models spanning closed and open weights fall from 63.2% to 41.9%. Because real repairs mix removal with addition, we curate CanItDelete, a benchmark of 200 tasks mined from real commits whose entire required edit is deletion. Even with the addition work gone, the best model still fails one task in five, and smaller open models fall to 18.0%. We then ablate GPT-5.6 Sol under four cumulative prompts; success moves little until we supply the exact lines, which nearly eliminate incomplete deletion yet raise success only to 80.5% because the model then deletes beyond the spans or adds code instead. Finally, through a pilot study we show one potential fix: teaching deletion during post-training reduces deletion avoidance and improves broader code-editing performance, suggesting the behavior is undertrained rather than beyond reach.</summary>
    <category term="cs.SE" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <category term="cs.AI" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <category term="cs.LG" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <published>2026-07-30T23:07:51Z</published>
    <arxiv:primary_category term="cs.SE"/>
    <author>
      <name>Amir M. Ebrahimi</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Mohammed Mehedi Hasan</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Aaditya Bhatia</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Gopi Krishnan Rajbahadur</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Ahmed E. Hassan</name>
    </author>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.28815v1</id>
    <title>Preventing Premature Commitment in Coding Agents with an Evidence-Conditioned Execution Layer</title>
    <updated>2026-07-30T20:16:35Z</updated>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.28815v1" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2607.28815v1" rel="related" type="application/pdf" title="pdf"/>
    <summary>LLM-based coding agents often edit source code or submit patches before examining enough repository evidence to justify the change, a failure pattern we call premature commitment. We present ECLoop, an execution layer that interposes between the agent and the repository to enforce evidence-conditioned execution. For each task, ECLoop uses the issue description and repository structure to compile a set of conditions specifying what the agent should observe before each type of code modification or patch submission. During execution, ECLoop tracks which conditions the agent's runtime trajectory has satisfied and postpones any proposed action whose required conditions remain unmet. Evaluated on all 500 instances of SWE-bench Verified with two language models and two agent scaffolds, ECLoop raises Pass@1 by 4.8-11.8 percentage points without model retraining or scaffold changes. Ablation experiments show that each of ECLoop's three operations contributes distinct value and that structured evidence conditions outperform an equivalent natural-language summary. These gains come at no additional inference cost: by redirecting the agent before it pursues unsupported actions, ECLoop lowers average token consumption by up to 12.1%.</summary>
    <category term="cs.SE" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <published>2026-07-30T20:16:35Z</published>
    <arxiv:comment>9 pages</arxiv:comment>
    <arxiv:primary_category term="cs.SE"/>
    <author>
      <name>Yisen Xu</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Chenglin Li</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Zehao Wang</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Jinqiu Yang</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Tse-Hsun Chen</name>
    </author>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.15040v3</id>
    <title>Orchard: An Open-Source Agentic Modeling Framework</title>
    <updated>2026-07-30T16:17:23Z</updated>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.15040v3" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2605.15040v3" rel="related" type="application/pdf" title="pdf"/>
    <summary>Agentic modeling aims to transform LLMs into autonomous agents capable of solving complex tasks through planning, reasoning, tool use, and multi-turn interaction with external environments. We present Orchard, an open-source framework for scalable agentic modeling. At its core is Orchard Env, a lightweight Kubernetes-native environment service that provides reusable primitives for sandbox lifecycle management across task domains, agent harnesses, and training stages. On top of Orchard Env, we build three agentic modeling recipes. Orchard-SWE targets software engineering agents. We introduce credit-assignment supervised fine-tuning and a progression of RL signals: Balanced Adaptive Rollout (BAR) for sparse-reward optimization, on-policy distillation (OPD) and rubric-based process reward (RPR) for dense supervision, and historical experience distillation, which compresses rollouts from prior experiments into a compact value model for inference-time reranking. Built on the Qwen3.5-35B-A3B backbone, Orchard-SWE reaches 69.7% with RPR-based RL and 73.0% with value-model reranking on SWE-bench Verified, setting a new state of the art among open-source methods while approaching frontier systems over 10x larger. Orchard-GUI trains a 4B vision-language computer-use agent using only 0.4K distilled trajectories and 2.2K open-ended tasks, achieving 68.4% average success across WebVoyager, Online-Mind2Web, and DeepShop, making it the strongest open-source model while remaining competitive with proprietary systems. Orchard-Claw targets personal assistant agents. Trained with only 0.2K synthetic tasks, it achieves 59.6% pass@3 on Claw-Eval and 73.9% when paired with the stronger ZeroClaw harness. Collectively, these results demonstrate that a lightweight, open, harness-agnostic environment layer enables reusable agentic data, training recipes, and evaluation protocols across domains.</summary>
    <category term="cs.AI" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <category term="cs.CL" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <published>2026-05-14T16:35:12Z</published>
    <arxiv:primary_category term="cs.AI"/>
    <author>
      <name>Baolin Peng</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Wenlin Yao</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Qianhui Wu</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Hao Cheng</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Xiao Yu</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Rui Yang</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Tao Ge</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Alessandro Sordoni</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Xingdi Yuan</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Yelong Shen</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Pengcheng He</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Tong Zhang</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Zhou Yu</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Jianfeng Gao</name>
    </author>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.27518v1</id>
    <title>Automated Transcript Analysis for Detecting Flaws in Agentic Benchmarks</title>
    <updated>2026-07-29T23:17:08Z</updated>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.27518v1" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2607.27518v1" rel="related" type="application/pdf" title="pdf"/>
    <summary>Capabilities of frontier models are often assessed using agentic benchmarks. To trust these results, benchmarks must accurately measure what they claim to and be free from invalidating flaws. Previous manual audits of benchmarks such as SWE-Bench-Verified have uncovered several validity issues in transcripts. However, manual review is difficult to scale, and it is unclear whether automated methods can reliably surface flaws that compromise benchmark validity. In this paper, we developed AI scanners to detect four types of validity issues: ground truth access, tool failure, guessing vulnerability, and answer format ambiguity. We produced grading rubrics for each to instruct human labeling, and evaluated the scanners against human labels on a held-out test set of Inspect Evals benchmarks. Our scanners identified several verified quality issues in five widely used benchmarks, including cases unlikely to be caught by random manual inspection. Not all cases were identified, and scanner performance varied substantially across benchmarks, criteria and models. We highlight several open challenges to be addressed to improve scanners for stronger quality assurance claims, including broader standardization gaps in the evaluation field that degrade scanner performance. Together, these results serve as a proof of concept for using automated transcript analysis to audit benchmark quality more broadly.</summary>
    <category term="cs.AI" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <published>2026-07-29T23:17:08Z</published>
    <arxiv:comment>49 pages, 19 figures, Preprint</arxiv:comment>
    <arxiv:primary_category term="cs.AI"/>
    <author>
      <name>Jeff Mohl</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Nelson Gardner-Challis</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Magda Dubois</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Harry Coppock</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Benjamin Allan-Rahill</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Kaelan Yim</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Damian Sójka</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>James Mann</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Justin Olive</name>
    </author>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.27146v1</id>
    <title>MindForge: Teaching Small Language Models Whole-Life-Cycle Software Engineering via Source-Free Program Synthesis</title>
    <updated>2026-07-29T17:23:02Z</updated>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.27146v1" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2607.27146v1" rel="related" type="application/pdf" title="pdf"/>
    <summary>Coding agents have made substantial progress on software engineering tasks that modify existing codebases, including bug fixing and feature implementation. However, constructing a complete program from scratch remains a major challenge: even the frontier models evaluated on ProgramBench fully resolve fewer than 1% of tasks. One obstacle is the lack of scalable training environments for this from-scratch setting, spanning the whole software engineering life cycle, as existing environment-construction frameworks focus only on a single phase in software development. To address this gap, we introduce MindForge, an automated pipeline that converts open-source command-line programs into source-free environments that expose only a compiled reference executable and its documentation. Using MindForge, we construct training environments from repositories disjoint from those in ProgramBench, and curate a high-quality data recipe consisting of program synthesis trajectories using GLM-5.2 as the teacher agent. Fine-tuning Qwen3.6-27B on these trajectories increases its ProgramBench average test pass rate from 37.98% to 49.51%, achieving performance comparable to substantially larger frontier models. Moreover, the fine-tuned model consistently improves over the base model across all seven unseen software engineering benchmarks, spanning long-horizon repository generation and translation, bug fixing, feature implementation, and cross-language issue resolution, with absolute gains of 31.00 points on RepoZero-C2Rust, 14.16 on DeepSWE, 10.70/4.56 on NL2Repo-Bench (with/without tests), 5.04 on SWE-bench Verified, 5.93 on SWE-bench Pro, 5.22 on SWE-bench Multilingual, and 4.94 on FeatBench.</summary>
    <category term="cs.SE" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <category term="cs.CL" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <category term="cs.LG" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <published>2026-07-29T17:23:02Z</published>
    <arxiv:primary_category term="cs.SE"/>
    <author>
      <name>Yihao Chen</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Shi Chang</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Khaled Chawa</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Feng Lin</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Boyuan Chen</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Shaowei Wang</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Ahmed E. Hassan</name>
    </author>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.16387v2</id>
    <title>Fantastic Adaptive Taxonomies and How to Use Them</title>
    <updated>2026-07-29T10:57:37Z</updated>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.16387v2" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2607.16387v2" rel="related" type="application/pdf" title="pdf"/>
    <summary>An agent system's execution traces record how it fails, and procedures that improve such a system without changing model weights (trajectory selection, prompt and workflow optimization, runtime monitoring) read these traces for feedback. Yet raw traces are a poor medium for accumulating that feedback: long, instance-specific, and lacking a stable vocabulary for recurring failures. We argue that an agent system should instead maintain an explicit representation of how it fails, induced from its own behavior and reusable wherever failure feedback is needed. AdaMAST builds this representation by converting a target system's traces into a compact, evidence-grounded failure taxonomy: named failure codes organized along three fixed axes (system-level, role-specific, and domain-specific), with every name, definition, and evidence pattern induced from the traces; no code is hand-authored, no trace human-annotated. The taxonomy is not merely a post-hoc diagnostic but a shared feedback interface, improving agents in three ways. In agent-system search, taxonomy-coded diagnoses of failed candidates outperform free-form reflection on all five benchmarks we test. At runtime, taxonomy feedback raises SWE-agent's resolution on SWE-bench Verified Mini from 60% with free-text reflection to 70%, and improves Claude Code from 64.0% to 70.7% as a runtime skill. In trajectory selection, AdaMAST-Judge, a verifier built on the induced codes, improves best-of-5 accuracy on Terminal-Bench 2.0 by 8-15 points over Pass@1. The vocabulary itself is compact (an order-of-magnitude compression that preserves trace distinctions), human-faithful (matching expert failure annotations more closely than a hand-crafted reference vocabulary), and adaptive (taxonomies induced for different domains share few codes). Adaptive failure taxonomies close the loop between the traces agents produce and the procedures that improve them.</summary>
    <category term="cs.SE" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <category term="cs.AI" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <published>2026-07-17T17:41:16Z</published>
    <arxiv:primary_category term="cs.SE"/>
    <author>
      <name>Mert Cemri</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Andrei Cojocaru</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Melissa Pan</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Shu Liu</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Shubham Agarwal</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Alexander Krentsel</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Jay Tang</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Kannan Ramchandran</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Joseph E. Gonzalez</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Matei Zaharia</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Alex Dimakis</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Ion Stoica</name>
    </author>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.26451v1</id>
    <title>ExplainBench: Evaluating Code Explanations from Agents</title>
    <updated>2026-07-29T04:04:54Z</updated>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.26451v1" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2607.26451v1" rel="related" type="application/pdf" title="pdf"/>
    <summary>Large Language Model (LLM) agents have seen rapid adoption in software engineering. As agents take a greater role in the actual generation of code, they are making larger changes, spanning tens to hundreds of lines. This makes manual review of agent results increasingly infeasible, leading developers to turn to explanations to understand enacted changes. Despite this, there are no benchmarks that evaluate the trustworthiness of agent-generated explanations. To bridge this gap, we propose ExplainBench, a benchmark to automatically evaluate explanations from coding agents. ExplainBench is based on the intuition that informative explanations should enable an LLM to correctly answer questions, allowing quantitative comparison of explanation quality between agents. With this observation, we construct a suite of questions that evaluates whether explanations accurately describe (1) the intended behavior of buggy code and (2) the effect of applying the agent patch itself. Experiments first reveal that explanation quality is a distinct axis of agent evaluation: ExplainBench ranks agents differently from the widely-used SWE-bench Verified benchmark. A deeper breakdown of explanation quality in agents shows frequent problems in explanations, such that explanations often claim that a patch is correct when it is not. Based on this insight, we implement and evaluate an explanation audit agent which runs additional tests to validate and refine explanations. This agent improved the explanations of all evaluated agents, demonstrating agent explanations can be automatically made more trustworthy.</summary>
    <category term="cs.SE" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <published>2026-07-29T04:04:54Z</published>
    <arxiv:comment>ASE 2026</arxiv:comment>
    <arxiv:primary_category term="cs.SE"/>
    <author>
      <name>Zhiyuan Pan</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Sungmin Kang</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Imam Nur Bani Yusuf</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Abhik Roychoudhury</name>
    </author>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.25873v1</id>
    <title>How Do LLMs Read Bug Reports? An Empirical Study of Attention in LLMs for Automated Program Repair</title>
    <updated>2026-07-28T15:38:12Z</updated>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.25873v1" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2607.25873v1" rel="related" type="application/pdf" title="pdf"/>
    <summary>Large Language Model (LLM)-based Automated Program Repair systems are advancing rapidly, yet their performance remains inconsistent. Even when provided with the same contextual information, an LLM may generate a correct patch for one bug but fail on another closely related bug. Why this happens remains poorly understood, and it is unclear how LLMs prioritize the diverse information in bug reports and whether model attention affects repair success. In this paper, we present the first empirical study of attention patterns in LLM-based program repair, providing interpretable insights into how models process bug reports and where their attention is concentrated during repair. We analyze 319 real-world Python and Java bugs from SWE-bench Verified and Multi-SWE-bench to study (RQ1) how model attention is distributed across bug report sections, (RQ2) how attention patterns within each section differ between successful and unsuccessful repairs, and (RQ3) how these patterns compare to information developers consider important for bug fixing. We find that successful repairs are characterized by diffused attention across multiple diagnostic components such as bug descriptions, stacktraces, and test cases, while failures often exhibit over-localized attention toward metadata such as version information. We further observe that stronger alignment between model attention and developer-identified key sections and phrases is associated with higher repair success. Our results provide the first empirical evidence that attention misallocation is a key factor in LLM-based APR failures, and offer actionable insights for designing more interpretable and reliable future APR systems.</summary>
    <category term="cs.SE" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <category term="cs.AI" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <published>2026-07-28T15:38:12Z</published>
    <arxiv:comment>Accepted at the 41st IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE) 2026 Conference</arxiv:comment>
    <arxiv:primary_category term="cs.SE"/>
    <author>
      <name>Ramtin Ehsani</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Irene Manotas</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Saurabh Pujar</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Luca Buratti</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Preetha Chatterjee</name>
    </author>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.27249v1</id>
    <title>OwlPath: Lossless Knowledge Compression for LLM Bug Repair</title>
    <updated>2026-07-28T08:42:57Z</updated>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.27249v1" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2607.27249v1" rel="related" type="application/pdf" title="pdf"/>
    <summary>LLM-based software engineering agents are constrained by limited context windows: roughly 100K tokens must store structurally relevant code  subsets to resolve bugs. Standard retrieval models treat code as plain text, forcing agents to resolve multi-hop dependencies including subclass  chains, transitive callers and interface implementations through slow trial and error. We tackle this limitation with lossless knowledge  compression, encoding source code into an OWL2 ontology to answer structural queries using minimal relevant code fragments.
  We present OwlPath, an OWL2 reasoning layer atop CodeGraph, a widely used code intelligence platform with 500K+ GitHub stars, offering a unified  CLI for structural code retrieval. Powered by tree-sitter parsing, OwlPath supports multi-language repositories (Python, JavaScript,  TypeScript, Go, etc.) and encodes language-specific semantics into a unified OWL2 ontology. It adopts two complementary modules. First, a  transitive-closure engine fetches all structurally linked symbols via single SPARQL property-path queries, capturing multi-hop relations missed  by string matching. Second, the OWL Software Knowledge Map (OWL-SKM) precomputes a compact 3KB summary with module trees, core APIs and  issue-related symbols, directing agents to target modules in the first query.
  Evaluated on 18 SWE-bench Pro instances, OwlPath obtains a 68.4% strict-apply rate versus 66.7% for the CodeGraph baseline, cutting token usage  by 28.8% and runtime by 39.5%. In offline retrieval tests over 67 instances, OwlPath improves recall 2.06 times (0.464 vs 0.226) and reaches  88.1% hit rate compared to CodeGraph's 59.7%. On a 37-question structural retrieval benchmark, recall rises from 4.4% to 28.8%, with 69-80%  accuracy on transitive caller and interface tasks.</summary>
    <category term="cs.SE" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <published>2026-07-28T08:42:57Z</published>
    <arxiv:primary_category term="cs.SE"/>
    <author>
      <name>Bo Zhang</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Ren Pan</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Huan Chen</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Xiang Song</name>
    </author>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2408.03910v3</id>
    <title>CodexGraph: Bridging Large Language Models and Code Repositories via Code Graph Databases</title>
    <updated>2026-07-27T07:02:11Z</updated>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.03910v3" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2408.03910v3" rel="related" type="application/pdf" title="pdf"/>
    <summary>Large Language Models (LLMs) excel in stand-alone code tasks like HumanEval and MBPP, but struggle with handling entire code repositories. This challenge has prompted research on enhancing LLM-codebase interaction at a repository scale. Current solutions rely on similarity-based retrieval or manual tools and APIs, each with notable drawbacks. Similarity-based retrieval often has low recall in complex tasks, while manual tools and APIs are typically task-specific and require expert knowledge, reducing their generalizability across diverse code tasks and real-world applications. To mitigate these limitations, we introduce CodexGraph, a system that integrates LLM agents with graph database interfaces extracted from code repositories. By leveraging the structural properties of graph databases and the flexibility of the graph query language, CodexGraph enables the LLM agent to construct and execute queries, allowing for precise, code structure-aware context retrieval and code navigation. We assess CodexGraph using three benchmarks: CrossCodeEval, SWE-bench, and EvoCodeBench. Additionally, we develop five real-world coding applications. With a unified graph database schema, CodexGraph demonstrates competitive performance and potential in both academic and real-world environments, showcasing its versatility and efficacy in software engineering. Our application demo: https://github.com/modelscope/modelscope-agent/tree/master/apps/codexgraph_agent.</summary>
    <category term="cs.SE" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <category term="cs.AI" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <category term="cs.CL" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <published>2024-08-07T17:13:59Z</published>
    <arxiv:comment>work in progress</arxiv:comment>
    <arxiv:primary_category term="cs.SE"/>
    <author>
      <name>Xiangyan Liu</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Bo Lan</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Zhiyuan Hu</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Yang Liu</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Zhicheng Zhang</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Fei Wang</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Michael Shieh</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Wenmeng Zhou</name>
    </author>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.23765v1</id>
    <title>WISERouter: LLM Routing with Workload Budget Constraint</title>
    <updated>2026-07-26T17:20:39Z</updated>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.23765v1" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2607.23765v1" rel="related" type="application/pdf" title="pdf"/>
    <summary>Large language models (LLMs) achieve impressive performance across multiple domains, but using the most capable model for every query is prohibitive at scale. LLM routing exploits diversity in model capability and cost by assigning each query to a suitable model to balance utility and budget. Current methods have two limitations: (i) they either use heuristics that do not always enforce the budget constraint or impose a fixed per-query budget that cannot adapt across the workload and leads to suboptimal performance; (ii) they require supervised learning on a dense dataset with statistics for every query-model pair, which is expensive to collect. To address these challenges, we formulate LLM routing as a constrained contextual multi-armed bandit problem and introduce WISERouter (WR for short), a framework that supports offline learning from historical interactions as well as online learning with exploration. We further prove that WR-Online achieves a sublinear regret bound of $O(\sqrt{T})$ over a time horizon $T$. Empirical results on RouterBench and SWE-Bench demonstrate that (i) WR-Offline surpasses existing baselines in performance under a fixed budget and adheres more closely to budget constraints, and (ii) WR-Online achieves comparable performance to the baselines, while using substantially less exploration data.</summary>
    <category term="cs.LG" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <category term="cs.AI" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <published>2026-07-26T17:20:39Z</published>
    <arxiv:primary_category term="cs.LG"/>
    <author>
      <name>Yifei Li</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Zihui Gao</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Laks V. S. Lakshmanan</name>
    </author>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.23505v1</id>
    <title>Benchmarking Zero-Shot LLM-Generated Parent Selection in Genetic Programming for Symbolic Regression</title>
    <updated>2026-07-26T07:12:12Z</updated>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.23505v1" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2607.23505v1" rel="related" type="application/pdf" title="pdf"/>
    <summary>Parent selection significantly affects exploration, exploitation, and complexity control in genetic programming (GP) for symbolic regression. It is unclear whether large language models (LLMs) can synthesize effective operators in a zero-shot setting without iterative meta-evolution. Here, zero-shot means that the model receives only the task description, with no reference operators or iterative feedback. In this work, we benchmark zero-shot synthesis of parent-selection operators across eight LLMs within a standard GP framework for symbolic regression. Each model receives the same natural-language prompt to generate a parent-selection operator, which is then evaluated in a standard GP framework with only the parent-selection operator replaced, while all other components and the evolutionary-search budget are held constant. For each LLM, ten independent zero-shot operators are evaluated on twelve OpenML regression benchmarks and compared against automatic lexicase and tournament selection baselines. Claude Sonnet~4.6 and Gemini~3.1 Pro stand out for consistently strong performance on both training and held-out test $R^2$. The strongest operator in our benchmark---a Kimi~K2.5 zero-shot synthesis---surpasses the automatic lexicase and tournament baselines in search effectiveness. These results suggest that zero-shot LLM synthesis is a viable approach to generating competitive GP selection operators. Analysis shows that many generated operators use semantics to guide selection, suggesting that LLMs can produce non-trivial search heuristics from the task description alone. We also examine the relationship between public LLM leaderboard rankings and GP performance. Widely used benchmarks, such as Humanity's Last Exam and SWE-bench Verified, strongly correlate with training $R^2$, while their relationship to held-out test $R^2$ is weaker and less clear.</summary>
    <category term="cs.NE" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <published>2026-07-26T07:12:12Z</published>
    <arxiv:comment>Accepted at PPSN 2026</arxiv:comment>
    <arxiv:primary_category term="cs.NE"/>
    <author>
      <name>Hengzhe Zhang</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Qi Chen</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Bing Xue</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Wolfgang Banzhaf</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Mengjie Zhang</name>
    </author>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2508.00031v3</id>
    <title>Git Context Controller: Manage the Context of LLM-based Agents like Git</title>
    <updated>2026-07-24T20:05:06Z</updated>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.00031v3" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2508.00031v3" rel="related" type="application/pdf" title="pdf"/>
    <summary>Large language model (LLM) agents have demonstrated strong capabilities in long-horizon tasks by interleaving reasoning with tool use. However, as these agents scale to complex workflows such as software engineering and open-ended research, context management becomes a fundamental bottleneck: interaction histories grow unbounded, become costly to maintain, and are difficult to reuse across sessions and agents. We introduce \textbf{Git-Context-Controller (GCC)}, a structured context management framework inspired by software version control systems. GCC elevates agent context from a transient token stream to a persistent, navigable memory workspace with explicit operations -- \texttt{COMMIT}, \texttt{BRANCH}, \texttt{MERGE}, and \texttt{CONTEXT}, that enable milestone-based checkpointing, isolated exploration of alternative reasoning paths, and hierarchical retrieval of historical context. By organizing agent memory as a versioned file system, GCC allows agents to manage long-term goals, recover and transfer reasoning across sessions, and coordinate multi-trajectory problem solving in a principled manner. Empirically, agents equipped with GCC achieve state-of-the-art performance on both SWE-Bench and BrowseComp benchmarks. On SWE-Bench Verified, GCC improves task resolution by over 13\% relative to strong long-context baselines and outperforms 26 existing open and commercial systems, reaching over 80\% success rate. The project will be open-sourced for the research community. https://github.com/ImprintLab/git-context-controller</summary>
    <category term="cs.SE" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <published>2025-07-30T08:01:45Z</published>
    <arxiv:primary_category term="cs.SE"/>
    <author>
      <name>Junde Wu</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Minhao Hu</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Jiayuan Zhu</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Jiazhen Pan</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Yuyuan Liu</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Min Xu</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Yueming Jin</name>
    </author>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.11149v3</id>
    <title>The Hidden Footprint: Making Storage a First-Class Metric for LLM Agent Evaluation</title>
    <updated>2026-07-23T12:36:42Z</updated>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.11149v3" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2607.11149v3" rel="related" type="application/pdf" title="pdf"/>
    <summary>LLM agent benchmarks measure task completion, reliability, and inference cost, but not the persistent data an agent run leaves on disk, including logs, context snapshots, checkpoints, and debug traces. We introduce AgentFootprint, a cross-framework benchmark of post-run agent storage footprint. Its serialization-aware metric suite measures total retention, channel composition, duplication, growth, compressibility, and conversation-history reconstructability. It addresses a measurement trap: naive byte-level measurement understates duplication by an order of magnitude because database paging and JSON escaping obscure repeated content. A fixed-trace control separates agent-generated logical volume from persistence-layer amplification: replaying the same trajectory through seven persisting frameworks yields a 6.7x spread. Under identical models, tools, and tasks, configurations with 100% accuracy differ by 15.7x in retained bytes, although their defaults support different recovery and audit capabilities. Three full-history configurations grow superlinearly on a repeated-observation stress task. Exported trajectories from 108 instance-normalized SWE-bench Verified submissions span three orders of magnitude per instance, with no detectable correlation with resolve rate. A content-addressed store reduces retention by 4.8x-32.7x while preserving every reconstructability score. These results establish persistent storage as a resource metric to report jointly with accuracy and reconstructability.</summary>
    <category term="cs.AI" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <published>2026-07-13T06:44:33Z</published>
    <arxiv:comment>17 pages, 5 figures; includes supplementary material</arxiv:comment>
    <arxiv:primary_category term="cs.AI"/>
    <author>
      <name>Chenglin Yu</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Hongquan Gui</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Ying Yu</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Tao Zeng</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Ming Li</name>
    </author>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.14249v3</id>
    <title>HarnessX: A Composable, Adaptive, and Evolvable Agent Harness Foundry</title>
    <updated>2026-07-23T03:12:37Z</updated>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.14249v3" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2606.14249v3" rel="related" type="application/pdf" title="pdf"/>
    <summary>AI agent performance depends critically on the runtime harness, comprising the prompts, tools, memory, and control flow that mediate how a model observes, reasons, and acts. Yet today's harnesses remain largely hand-crafted and static: each new model or task still demands bespoke scaffolding, and the rich traces produced during execution are rarely distilled back into systematic improvement. We introduce HarnessX, a foundry for composable, adaptive, and evolvable agent harnesses. HarnessX assembles typed harness primitives via a substitution algebra, adapts them through AEGIS, a trace-driven multi-agent evolution engine grounded in an operational mirror between symbolic adaptation and reinforcement learning, and closes the harness-model loop by turning trajectories into both harness updates and model training signal. Across five benchmarks (ALFWorld, GAIA, WebShop, tau^3-Bench, and SWE-bench Verified), HarnessX yields an average gain of +14.5% (up to +44.0%), with gains largest where baselines are lowest. These results suggest that agent progress need not come from model scaling alone: composing and evolving runtime interfaces from execution feedback is an actionable and complementary lever. Project homepage: https://darwin-agent.github.io/HarnessX/.</summary>
    <category term="cs.AI" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <published>2026-06-12T08:27:11Z</published>
    <arxiv:primary_category term="cs.AI"/>
    <author>
      <name>Tingyang Chen</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Shuo Lu</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Kang Zhao</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Weicheng Meng</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Hanlin Teng</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Tianhao Li</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Chao Li</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Xule Liu</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Jian Liang</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Zhizhong Zhang</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Yuan Xie</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Heng Qu</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Kun Shao</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Jian Luan</name>
    </author>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.20709v1</id>
    <title>NVIDIA-labs OO Agents: Native Python Object-Oriented Agents</title>
    <updated>2026-07-22T20:25:55Z</updated>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.20709v1" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2607.20709v1" rel="related" type="application/pdf" title="pdf"/>
    <summary>Traditional agent development is split across prompt templates, tool schemas, callback code, and workflow graphs. We present NVIDIA Object-Oriented Agents (NOOA), a model-agnostic Python framework for building reliable AI agents. NOOA takes a simpler approach: an agent is a Python object. Its methods are the actions the model can take, fields are its state, docstrings are its prompts, and its type annotations are contracts. A method whose code body consists of "..." is completed at runtime by an LLM-driven agent loop, while methods with normal bodies remain standard deterministic Python. This gives developers and agents the same interface, so agent behavior can be tested, traced, refactored, and improved just like other software.
  This paper makes three contributions. (1) We present the agent-as-a-Python-object programming model and the design principles behind it. Where Python has existing abstractions, we adopt them directly. Agent-specific capabilities--context, events, state rendering, long-term memory, and validated LLM loops--are exposed through simple Pythonic APIs, so both developers and agents share one familiar programming model. (2) We identify six model-facing ideas that NOOA is, to our knowledge, the first to combine on a single surface: typed input/output, pass-by-reference over live objects, code as action, programmable loop engineering, explicit object state, and model-callable harness APIs for context and events. We find the community already converging on several of these ideas--often as experimental or partial features--and present the comparison to encourage further adoption. (3) We demonstrate that current models use this interface effectively, both in targeted capability tests and on agentic and reasoning benchmarks such as SWE-bench Verified and Terminal-Bench 2.0 and ARC-AGI-3.</summary>
    <category term="cs.AI" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <category term="cs.CL" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <published>2026-07-22T20:25:55Z</published>
    <arxiv:primary_category term="cs.AI"/>
    <author>
      <name>Paul Furgale</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Severin Klingler</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>James Nolan</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Matt Staats</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Gaia Di Lorenzo</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Elisa Martinez Abad</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Christian Schüller</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Razvan Dinu</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Alessio Devoto</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Pascal Berard</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Gal Kaplun</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Elad Sarafian</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Riccardo Roveri</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Leon Derczynski</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Ricardo Silveira Cabral</name>
    </author>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.02187v2</id>
    <title>Rewriting the Response Path: Silent Tampering and Provider-Signed Defense in BYOK LLM Agents</title>
    <updated>2026-07-22T08:25:06Z</updated>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.02187v2" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2605.02187v2" rel="related" type="application/pdf" title="pdf"/>
    <summary>LLM agents convert model outputs into consequential actions, including communications, code changes, and financial transactions. Developers often trust evidence such as test results and execution logs. We identify a response path integrity gap in Bring Your Own Key configurations used by roughly 88 percent of mainstream agents. Because traffic passes through a user-authorized relay, the relay can modify plaintext LLM responses after alignment but before execution without breaking encryption. A minimal attack rewrites one execution bearing field and regenerates the remaining response using the user key while preserving the model style. Experiments reveal false green verification, where malicious code modifications pass public tests while silently defeating security checks. On APPS, 99.7 percent of publicly passing solutions retained downgraded behavior without developer-visible warnings. Tests on SWE bench, AgentDojo, and ASB across five frontier models show that single-field rewriting can redirect agents while preserving apparent task completion. We propose sign-c, a server-side scheme that authenticates execution bearing fields and outgoing queries. A local shim verifies them before action, while encryption protects confidentiality. The defense rejected all tampered responses with zero false rejections and only 0.0167 percent latency overhead.</summary>
    <category term="cs.CR" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <category term="cs.AI" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <published>2026-05-04T03:35:17Z</published>
    <arxiv:primary_category term="cs.CR"/>
    <author>
      <name>Mingyu Luo</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Zihan Zhang</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Zesen Liu</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Yuchong Xie</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Zhixiang Zhang</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Dung Hiu Hilton Yeung</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Wai Ip Lai</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Ping Chen</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Ming Wen</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Dongdong She</name>
    </author>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.19843v1</id>
    <title>Beyond Fail-to-Pass: Iterative Hardening of Co-Generated Bug Reproduction Tests and Fixes</title>
    <updated>2026-07-22T07:30:07Z</updated>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.19843v1" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2607.19843v1" rel="related" type="application/pdf" title="pdf"/>
    <summary>Large language models (LLMs) have made automated program repair (APR) increasingly practical for real-world bugs, but repairing directly from bug reports remains underconstrained. Bug reproduction tests (BRTs) help close this gap by turning a bug report into an executable, bug-specific signal that can guide repair and validate candidate patches. Existing work has therefore studied BRT generation as a core subproblem in APR and mainly evaluates a generated BRT using the fail-to-pass (F-&gt;P) criterion, which requires the test to fail on the buggy code but pass on the golden fix. We show that F-&gt;P alone is insufficient when the goal of a BRT is to improve downstream repair. In particular, some F-&gt;P BRTs are lax, reproducing the observed symptom yet still admitting plausible-but-incorrect patches. We formalize this missing quality dimension by separating F-&gt;P BRTs into rigorous and lax ones, and show empirically that only the former consistently improve repair success. We further find that co-generation introduces test--fix error coupling, where the in-trajectory fail-to-pass (F-&gt;P) check can pass even when both the generated patch and generated test are wrong. Based on these findings, we propose CoHarden, a co-generation framework that uses the Lax signal as an in-loop convergence criterion. CoHarden first generates a test before any fix, then iteratively hardens the test and fix against surviving mutation patches until the generated test no longer admits Lax regressions. Experiments show that CoHarden reaches 69.4% Resolved and 78.9% F-&gt;P on SWE-bench Verified, outperforming the strongest fix-only and cogeneration baselines by +9.6 and +7.9 percentage points in Resolved, respectively, with consistent gains across LLM backbones and benchmarks.</summary>
    <category term="cs.SE" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <category term="cs.AI" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <published>2026-07-22T07:30:07Z</published>
    <arxiv:comment>29 pages, 5 figures, preprint</arxiv:comment>
    <arxiv:primary_category term="cs.SE"/>
    <author>
      <name>Yuhao Tan</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Zhibang Yang</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Fangkai Yang</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Yuan Yao</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Yu Kang</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Lu Wang</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Pu Zhao</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Xin Zhang</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Xiaoxing Ma</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Qingwei Lin</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Saravan Rajmohan</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Dongmei Zhang</name>
    </author>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.19653v1</id>
    <title>PerfAgent: Profiler-Guided Iterative Refinement for Repository-Level Code Optimization</title>
    <updated>2026-07-22T01:19:42Z</updated>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.19653v1" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2607.19653v1" rel="related" type="application/pdf" title="pdf"/>
    <summary>Large language model (LLM) agents now perform well on correctness-oriented repository-level tasks, including SWE-Bench issue resolution and feature implementation in real codebases. However, they still struggle with repository-level code optimization, which requires preserving behavior while improving runtime performance. Passing tests is not enough in this setting; a patch must preserve behavior, implement code optimization, and approach expert speedups. Current agents often miss bottlenecks hidden behind abstraction layers and native extensions, stop after shallow speedups, or insufficiently test the code patches that thus may silently break edge cases. We present PerfAgent, a profiler-guided, verifier-in-the-loop workflow that gives an off-the-shelf coding agent the feedback needed to find real hotspots, improve beyond the first passing patch, and use profiler evidence rather than timing alone to decide what to optimize next. On two challenging optimization benchmarks, GSO and SWE-fficiency-Lite, PerfAgent more than doubles the rate of expert-matching patches over OpenHands with GPT-5.1, improving from 19.6% to 39.2% on GSO and from 26% to 74% on SWE-fficiency-Lite. It also surpasses an oracle best-of-five baseline at substantially lower cost, showing that the gains come from better feedback rather than additional test-time sampling.</summary>
    <category term="cs.SE" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <category term="cs.AI" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <published>2026-07-22T01:19:42Z</published>
    <arxiv:primary_category term="cs.SE"/>
    <author>
      <name>Ryan Deng</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Yuanzhe Liu</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Bastian Lipka</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Yao Ma</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Xuhao Chen</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Tim Kaler</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Jatin Ganhotra</name>
    </author>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.19595v1</id>
    <title>Twin Agent: Context Residual Compression for Privilege Separated Agents</title>
    <updated>2026-07-21T21:47:52Z</updated>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.19595v1" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2607.19595v1" rel="related" type="application/pdf" title="pdf"/>
    <summary>Large language model (LLM) agents are vulnerable to security risks, such as prompt injection attacks from untrusted context that manipulate downstream reasoning and tool use. Existing secure-by-design approaches mitigate this risk by separating untrusted observations from privileged execution and careful control of information flow, but often degrade utility and require extensive task-specific engineering. We thus propose Twin Agent, a general privilege separation design pattern inspired by residual coding in the agent context. Twin Agent consists of two nearly symmetric agents: an Explore Agent that inspects untrusted information and a Safe Agent that executes privileged actions. The Explore Agent is conditioned on the Safe Agent's current context and communicates only compact hints to the Safe Agent about the next action to take. This design reduces the information needed to preserve task utility and thus achieves a better security--utility tradeoff, which we empirically verify by measuring how utility and attack success change as the length of hints varies. We evaluate Twin Agent on long-horizon software engineering tasks with SWE-bench Lite and on heterogeneous multi-tool interaction tasks with AgentDojo and DecodingTrust-Agent. Across both benchmarks, Twin Agent preserves high task utility while preventing prompt injection attacks, outperforming both undefended agents and privilege separation baselines.</summary>
    <category term="cs.CR" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <category term="cs.CL" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <published>2026-07-21T21:47:52Z</published>
    <arxiv:primary_category term="cs.CR"/>
    <author>
      <name>Zhanhao Hu</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Dennis Jacob</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Xiao Huang</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Zhaorun Chen</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Bo Li</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>David Wagner</name>
    </author>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.18859v1</id>
    <title>PhoenixRepair: Rethinking Repair Strategy Exploration in Software Agents</title>
    <updated>2026-07-21T08:49:30Z</updated>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.18859v1" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2607.18859v1" rel="related" type="application/pdf" title="pdf"/>
    <summary>While Large Language Models have greatly advanced automated issue resolution, existing agent-based methods exhibit a fundamental limitation in their insufficient exploration of repair strategies. This insufficiency manifests in two key aspects. First, the exploration of multiple potential edit locations is limited. Second, the exploration of repair attempts at each location is also insufficient. To address these challenges, we present PhoenixRepair, a multi-agent framework that systematically explores multiple candidate edit locations and performs iterative reflection and refinement on patch generation, thereby expanding the search space of repair strategies. Our framework begins with multi-location sampling, optionally augmented with graph-based localization information for difficult tasks, followed by iterative reflection and refinement to generate better patches, culminating in final-round generation guided by distilled insights from all historical attempts. Experiments on SWE-bench-Verified demonstrate that PhoenixRepair achieves the largest relative improvement of 7.8\% over SWE-agent under DeepSeek-V3.1, and attains the highest resolved rate of 76.0\% Pass@1 under MiniMax-M2.5. Meanwhile, it achieves higher fault localization accuracy than existing approaches. Our code is available at https://github.com/DeepSoftwareAnalytics/PhoenixRepair.</summary>
    <category term="cs.AI" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <published>2026-07-21T08:49:30Z</published>
    <arxiv:comment>14 pages, 5 figures</arxiv:comment>
    <arxiv:primary_category term="cs.AI"/>
    <author>
      <name>Tianyue Jiang</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Yanlin Wang</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Xin He</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Daya Guo</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Jiachi Chen</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Ming Wen</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Ensheng Shi</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Xilin Liu</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Yuchi Ma</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Guanbin Li</name>
    </author>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.22711v1</id>
    <title>CORVUS: Context Optimization and Reduction Via Underlying Synchronization for LLM Coding Agents</title>
    <updated>2026-07-20T23:01:39Z</updated>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.22711v1" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2607.22711v1" rel="related" type="application/pdf" title="pdf"/>
    <summary>LLM coding agents operate by constructing trajectories that accumulate reasoning, tool calls, and results to enable multi-step decision-making. However, the conventional append-only trajectory architecture found in practice tightly couples file-read actions with their observations, capturing snapshots that become permanently fixed in the chronological history. As files change through agent edits or concurrent human modifications, these snapshots become stale, causing reasoning errors and causing agents to redundantly re-read files, with each re-read appending yet another copy to the trajectory. To mitigate this, we propose CORVUS, a novel trajectory architecture that decouples file-read actions from their observations by maintaining a synchronized registry of relevant files and injecting only their current contents at each reasoning cycle. This structural change produces significantly lighter-weight trajectories that remain synchronized with the actual codebase state by construction, eliminating redundant file copies and stale snapshots that bloat conventional trajectories. We evaluated CORVUS on SWE- POLYBENCH_VERIFIED and SWE-BENCH PRO across four LLMs, achieving 9-50% reduction in average input tokens per task, 15-32% shorter final prompts, and up to 37% fewer reasoning cycles while maintaining comparable pass rates.</summary>
    <category term="cs.LG" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <category term="cs.AI" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <category term="cs.SE" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <published>2026-07-20T23:01:39Z</published>
    <arxiv:primary_category term="cs.LG"/>
    <author>
      <name>Mingwei Zheng</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>David OBrien</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Siwei Cui</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Pardis Pashakhanloo</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Rajdeep Mukherjee</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Myeongsoo Kim</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Sachit Kuhar</name>
    </author>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.18462v1</id>
    <title>Beyond Resolved Rate: A Non-Functional Quality Study</title>
    <updated>2026-07-20T19:24:57Z</updated>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.18462v1" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2607.18462v1" rel="related" type="application/pdf" title="pdf"/>
    <summary>Repository-level coding benchmarks typically measure progress in model capability by comparing the resolved rates of later and earlier models. However, this focus overlooks whether the non-functional quality of their generated patches has also changed across model generations. This study investigates whether later models produce functionally correct patches with better non-functional characteristics than earlier models on comparable repository-level repair tasks. We conducted two case studies involving four Claude and DeepSeek models on SWE-bench Lite. Using the same SWE-agent functional repair setting, we evaluated the generated patches with CodeQL, CodeScene, CPU time, and peak memory. Our primary analysis compared the models on commonly resolved instances. The static analysis results showed that most CodeQL paired differences were zero and that no CodeQL or CodeScene comparison remained significant after Holm correction. CPU time differences were small and inconsistent across model families, while peak memory usage was slightly higher for the later models under the benchmark test workload, with small absolute differences. Differences in individual CodeQL rules and CodeScene categories varied across model families and did not survive multiple-comparison correction. Overall, later models resolved more instances but showed no consistent improvement in the measured non-functional indicators on tasks solved by both models. Through this study, we hope to encourage a more comprehensive evaluation of models' practical software engineering capabilities.</summary>
    <category term="cs.SE" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <published>2026-07-20T19:24:57Z</published>
    <arxiv:primary_category term="cs.SE"/>
    <author>
      <name>Xin Sun</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Daniel Ståhl</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Kristian Sandahl</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Christoph Kessler</name>
    </author>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.03691v2</id>
    <title>Don't Blame the Large Language Model: How Agent Harness Evolution Shapes Coding Agent Quality</title>
    <updated>2026-07-20T18:11:41Z</updated>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.03691v2" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2607.03691v2" rel="related" type="application/pdf" title="pdf"/>
    <summary>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. While these agent harnesses evolve at extreme velocities, no study has examined how this evolution affects agent quality (i.e., effectiveness and efficiency) over time. Practitioners regularly report quality regressions after agent harness updates, yet consistently attribute them to the underlying model rather than the harness itself. In this paper, we address this gap by conducting the first controlled longitudinal study that isolates the agent harness contribution. Unlike prior work that fixes the agent harness and varies the model, we fix the model and vary only the agent harness, evaluating 35 sequential releases to measure their impact on agent effectiveness and efficiency. We first empirically study the development and release evolution of five major open-source agent harnesses (i.e., Codex, Qwen Code, Gemini, OpenCode, and OpenHands), revealing extreme release velocities exceeding two releases per day and thousands of issues within months. We then perform a controlled deep dive into 35 sequential releases of the Qwen Code CLI, evaluating each against 50 stratified SWE-bench Verified tasks while holding the underlying LLM constant. We trace the resulting quality fluctuations to specific development patterns and architectural components, and illustrate our findings with concrete qualitative evidence linking individual pull requests to measured quality shifts.</summary>
    <category term="cs.SE" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <category term="cs.AI" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <category term="cs.LG" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <published>2026-07-04T03:55:25Z</published>
    <arxiv:primary_category term="cs.SE"/>
    <author>
      <name>Oussama Ben Sghaier</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Hao Li</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Bram Adams</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Ahmed E. Hassan</name>
    </author>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.18213v1</id>
    <title>SWE-Pruner Pro: The Coder LLM Already Knows What to Prune</title>
    <updated>2026-07-20T17:47:44Z</updated>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.18213v1" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2607.18213v1" rel="related" type="application/pdf" title="pdf"/>
    <summary>Pruning long context for coding agents has been a vital technology for efficient context management. While existing context pruning methods such as SWE-Pruner realize this by attaching a separate code classifier, we find the agent itself encodes internal representations indicating the relevance of code context when reading tool output. Based on this finding, we propose SWE-Pruner Pro, which prunes tool outputs directly inside the agent. Concretely, a small head turns the agent's own internal representations into a keep-or-prune label for each line, with a length-aware embedding keyed to each tool output's line count. Across two open-weight backbones and four multi-turn benchmarks, SWE-Pruner Pro saves up to 39% of prompt and completion tokens while preserving task quality, with bounded inference overhead. Notably, on MiMo-V2-Flash SWE-Pruner Pro additionally raises the SWE-Bench Verified resolve rate by +3.8% and the long-context Oolong accuracy by +2.2 points.</summary>
    <category term="cs.CL" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <category term="cs.SE" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <published>2026-07-20T17:47:44Z</published>
    <arxiv:comment>Project page: https://github.com/Ayanami1314/swe-pruner-pro</arxiv:comment>
    <arxiv:primary_category term="cs.CL"/>
    <author>
      <name>Yuhang Wang</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Yuling Shi</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Shaoqiu Zhang</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Jialiang Liang</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Shilin He</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Siyu Ye</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Yuting Chen</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Kai Cai</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Xiaodong Gu</name>
    </author>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.17286v1</id>
    <title>IssueExec: A Test-Driven Approach for Localizing Software Engineering Issues</title>
    <updated>2026-07-19T15:08:08Z</updated>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.17286v1" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2607.17286v1" rel="related" type="application/pdf" title="pdf"/>
    <summary>Issue localization, which identifies code locations requiring modification from issue descriptions, is a critical step in automated software maintenance. Existing approaches predominantly attempt to directly align issue descriptions with code elements, yet often struggle due to the inherent abstraction gap between the issue description and code implementation. Seeking alternative signals, our theoretical analysis suggests that test suites can serve as executable proxies for requirements, reducing localization uncertainty by 7.73 bits of entropy on average. A large-scale empirical study on 18 repositories validates this premise: existing tests cover 96.98\% of ground-truth files, and the two-hop pathway yields stronger semantic connectivity than direct matching in 82.4\% of cases. Despite their potential, leveraging tests for localization faces two key challenges: the semantic gap separating issue descriptions from test identifiers, and the substantial noise in execution traces from infrastructure code. To address these, we propose IssueExec, which bridges the semantic gap through domain-knowledge-enhanced test representations and filters noise via hierarchical trace analysis. Experiments on SWE-bench Lite show that IssueExec achieves state-of-the-art performance, improving function-level Recall@1 by 41.57\% over the strongest baseline. When integrated into the Agentless pipeline, IssueExec resolves 17.72\% more issues, demonstrating practical downstream benefits.</summary>
    <category term="cs.SE" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <published>2026-07-19T15:08:08Z</published>
    <arxiv:primary_category term="cs.SE"/>
    <author>
      <name>Jiawei Liu</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Yun Lin</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Chenyan Liu</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Yu Qian</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Yiming Liu</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Jiaxin Chang</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Weinan Zhang</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Linpeng Huang</name>
    </author>
    <arxiv:doi>10.1145/3832290</arxiv:doi>
    <link rel="related" href="https://doi.org/10.1145/3832290" title="doi"/>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.17205v1</id>
    <title>A Systematic Evaluation of Trajectory Data Curation for LoRA Fine-Tuning of Code Agents</title>
    <updated>2026-07-19T11:52:32Z</updated>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.17205v1" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2607.17205v1" rel="related" type="application/pdf" title="pdf"/>
    <summary>Supervised fine-tuning (SFT) of open-weight LLMs on expert agent trajectories has emerged as a prominent approach to building capable code agents without reliance on proprietary models. A central yet underexplored question is how trajectory quality and quantity jointly shape model performance. We present a systematic empirical study of trajectory data filtering for LoRA fine-tuning of Qwen2.5-Coder-7B-Instruct on the SWE-trajectory dataset (67,074 trajectories, of which 32,161 are resolved). We propose a two-axis quality scoring framework -- Efficiency and Style -- and evaluate it through 16 controlled experiments spanning strategy, scale, and ablation analyses. Since 7B-scale models attain near-zero SWE-bench resolve rates, we adopt cross-entropy (CE) loss on held-out trajectories as the primary metric, validated via first-action generation: CE loss and ROUGE-L are perfectly rank-correlated (Spearman $ρ$ = -1.00), with limited-sample evidence supporting but not conclusively establishing this proxy. Our results reveal a scale-dependent quality-quantity trade-off: at small scales, doubling the dataset (500 to 1,000) yields ~12.7% CE-loss reduction whereas the TopQ-Random gap stays &lt;1% (Mann-Whitney p &gt; 0.10); at 2,000 trajectories this same gap widens to 3.6% (p = 0.016). Ablation further identifies error-retry rate as the dominant sub-dimension, performing comparably to the full composite ($Δ$ &lt; 0.2%). Together, these findings establish trajectory-level quality scoring as a viable but scale-sensitive lever for code-agent SFT and offer a proxy-validated evaluation protocol for the regime where end-to-end resolve rate is statistically infeasible.</summary>
    <category term="cs.AI" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <category term="cs.SE" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <published>2026-07-19T11:52:32Z</published>
    <arxiv:comment>12 pages, 2 figures. Author's accepted manuscript of a paper published in the ICIC 2026 proceedings (oral presentation)</arxiv:comment>
    <arxiv:primary_category term="cs.AI"/>
    <arxiv:journal_ref>In: Huang, D.S., Li, B., Zhang, Q., Bao, W. (eds) Advanced Intelligent Computing Technology and Applications. ICIC 2026. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 16669, pp. 39-50. Springer, Singapore (2027)</arxiv:journal_ref>
    <author>
      <name>Yunze Han</name>
    </author>
    <arxiv:doi>10.1007/978-981-92-3492-9_4</arxiv:doi>
    <link rel="related" href="https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-92-3492-9_4" title="doi"/>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.17181v1</id>
    <title>Talaria: Session-Aware Serverless Serving of Hundred-Billion-Parameter LLMs</title>
    <updated>2026-07-19T10:37:33Z</updated>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.17181v1" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2607.17181v1" rel="related" type="application/pdf" title="pdf"/>
    <summary>Serverless multi-model LLM systems multiplex popularity-skewed model catalogs over shared GPU pools, yet typically schedule each request independently. Tool-using agents break this abstraction: a session repeatedly calls an LLM across short tool gaps, carries a long reusable KV prefix, and is judged by session completion time (SCT). Load-only routing can separate a continuation from both its model and KV state, while round-based model multiplexing can delay even a correctly placed continuation until the target model's next slot. Both failures are especially costly for hundred-billion-parameter models: their weights constrain residency, while long-context KV is expensive to reconstruct or move.
  We present Talaria, a session-aware serverless multi-model serving system that makes session continuity a joint placement-and-admission decision. Its router ranks placements by model residency, KV locality, and instance pressure, while soft reservations account for likely returns in the last serving instance's admission budget. Session-prefill (SP) admits budget-eligible continuations before the active model slot closes. An instance-local substrate keeps HBM addresses stable, preserves host-restorable KV, and stages weights across model switches.
  On a single TP=8 server, we replay 30 SWE-Bench model-sessions (960 calls) over three models, each with more than 100B total parameters. Against an otherwise identical round scheduler with SP, host-KV restoration, and D2D staging disabled, Talaria cuts p50 SCT from 1000 s to 189 s and p95 from 2296 s to 867 s, speedups of 5.3x and 2.6x.</summary>
    <category term="cs.DC" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <category term="cs.AI" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <published>2026-07-19T10:37:33Z</published>
    <arxiv:comment>19 pages, 15 figures</arxiv:comment>
    <arxiv:primary_category term="cs.DC"/>
    <author>
      <name>Utopia Meng</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Unicornt Zhao</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Derek Li</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Goalen Gao</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Frank Du</name>
    </author>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.12463v3</id>
    <title>Function-Aware Fill-in-the-Middle as Mid-Training for Coding Agent Foundation Models</title>
    <updated>2026-07-19T05:59:25Z</updated>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.12463v3" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2607.12463v3" rel="related" type="application/pdf" title="pdf"/>
    <summary>Coding agents must integrate external tool returns into ongoing reasoning - a capability that standard left-to-right pretraining on code exposes only in its forward direction. We observe that the action-observation-continuation loop of a coding agent is structurally isomorphic to a function call site, where a caller binds arguments, a callee returns a value computed elsewhere, and downstream code consumes that value. This conditioning structure exists at internet scale in ordinary code. We exploit it through function-aware fill-in-the-middle (FIM) mid-training: a self-supervised objective that masks functions selected via program dependency graph analysis and a complexity-inferability double criterion. We mid-train Qwen2.5-Coder-Instruct (7B/14B) and Qwen3-8B on a 2.6B-token decontaminated corpus drawn from 968 GitHub repositories, then apply existing agentic post-training pipelines. Mid-training improves SWE-Bench-Verified by +2.8/+3.0 at 7B/14B and by +3.2 on Qwen3-8B; SWE-Bench-Lite gains are +3.7/+4.0/+5.4 on the same models. The improvement holds across two post-training pipelines (R2E-Gym, SWE-Smith) and on a non-Qwen2.5 base (Qwen3-8B with SWE-Lego). Beyond in-domain gains, mid-training also mitigates the capability erosion that agentic post-training otherwise inflicts on non-agent coding (e.g., LiveCodeBench) and non-coding tool-use benchmarks (tau-bench, BFCL): although the mid-training corpus contains Python code only, the function-call inductive bias survives post-training and yields consistent gains.</summary>
    <category term="cs.AI" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <category term="cs.CL" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <published>2026-07-14T07:44:26Z</published>
    <arxiv:primary_category term="cs.AI"/>
    <author>
      <name>Yubo Wang</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Jiarong Liang</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Yuxuan Zhang</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Xuye Liu</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Cong Wei</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Yuyu Zhang</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Ping Nie</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Wenhu Chen</name>
    </author>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.15610v1</id>
    <title>Process Reward Informed Tree Rollout for Effective Multi-Turn RL</title>
    <updated>2026-07-17T04:16:58Z</updated>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.15610v1" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2607.15610v1" rel="related" type="application/pdf" title="pdf"/>
    <summary>Reinforcement learning (RL) has become a key approach for training LLM agents, yet popular methods such as GRPO/RLOO rely on multiple independently sampled complete trajectories for advantage estimation. In long-horizon agentic tasks, such a uniform rollout strategy can waste budget on uninformative dead-end attempts, while promising intermediate states do not receive sufficient exploration. The multi-turn structure of agentic trajectories, with interleaved actions and observations, naturally supports organizing a trajectory group as a tree, where each turn serves as a decision point for exploration. This perspective reframes effective exploration as the problem of deciding where to branch. We propose Process-Scorer Guided Adaptive Tree Rollout (PATR), a quality-aware rollout framework for multi-turn agent RL. PATR uses task-appropriate process feedback to score partial trajectories, selectively branches from promising states, reuses shared prefixes, and conservatively stops degenerate paths to reduce wasted sampling. The resulting rollout groups remain compatible with standard policy optimization while providing more efficient exploration under the same training budget. We evaluate PATR on FrozenLake and the challenging SWE-Bench, which is largely unexplored by prior tree-rollout agent RL methods. Experiments show that PATR improves performance by up to +5.0 points on SWE-Bench and +9.3 points on FrozenLake, highlighting process-guided tree rollouts as an effective strategy for scalable multi-turn RL.</summary>
    <category term="cs.CL" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <category term="cs.AI" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <category term="cs.LG" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <published>2026-07-17T04:16:58Z</published>
    <arxiv:comment>Preprint</arxiv:comment>
    <arxiv:primary_category term="cs.CL"/>
    <author>
      <name>Xintong Li</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Sha Li</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Yuwei Zhang</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Changlong Yu</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Rongmei Lin</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Hongye Jin</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Shuyi Guan</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Xin Liu</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Linwei Li</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Qingyu Yin</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Jingbo Shang</name>
    </author>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.14075v1</id>
    <title>VisualRepair: Dynamic Tool Calling and Region Focusing for Visual Software Issue Repair</title>
    <updated>2026-07-15T17:48:16Z</updated>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.14075v1" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2607.14075v1" rel="related" type="application/pdf" title="pdf"/>
    <summary>Automated Program Repair (APR) has witnessed significant progress with the advent of Large Language Models (LLMs). However, as modern software systems increasingly expose rich graphical user interfaces, effectively leveraging visual information from bug screenshots has become essential for understanding bugs and generating accurate fixes in multimodal scenarios. Real-world issue reports frequently contain heterogeneous visual attachments including UI screenshots, IDE snapshots, GIFs, and text-centric images, each with distinct visual patterns and domain-specific semantics that impose substantial perceptual demands on MLLMs. Furthermore, bug screenshots often contain large expanses of uninformative and bug-irrelevant regions, distracting the model's attention and limiting patch diversity. To address these challenges, we propose VisualRepair, an MLLM-based framework for visual software issue repair comprising two core modules: Image Type-aware Tool Calling (ITTC), which classifies input images and dynamically invokes a tailored tool-calling chain for robust visual interpretation, and Dynamic Test-time Region Focusing (DTRF), which grounds multiple bug-related region candidates and refines them via an adaptive zoom-in and zoom-out strategy to improve fault localization and promote diverse patch generation. Extensive experiments on the SWE-bench Multimodal benchmark demonstrate that VisualRepair consistently outperforms state-of-the-art approaches. VisualRepair resolves 196 and 25 instances on the test and dev sets, respectively, surpassing the best baseline by 10 and 11 instances. These results highlight the effectiveness of type-aware visual understanding and region-focused localization for automated visual software issue repair.</summary>
    <category term="cs.SE" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <published>2026-07-15T17:48:16Z</published>
    <arxiv:comment>The paper was completed in March 2026 and is currently under review. The code will be released upon acceptance</arxiv:comment>
    <arxiv:primary_category term="cs.SE"/>
    <author>
      <name>Jingyu Xiao</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Zhongyi Zhang</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Haoran Hou</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Yuxuan Wan</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Yuan Jiang</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Yintong Huo</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Michael R. Lyu</name>
    </author>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.14171v1</id>
    <title>Branching Policy Optimization: Sandbox-Native Language Agent Reinforcement Learning</title>
    <updated>2026-07-15T09:37:36Z</updated>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.14171v1" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2607.14171v1" rel="related" type="application/pdf" title="pdf"/>
    <summary>Reinforcement learning has emerged as the dominant paradigm for training large language model (LLM) agents that interact with executable sandboxes. State-of-the-art algorithms such as PPO, RLOO, and GRPO inherit their rollout topology from RLHF: for each prompt, N independent trajectories are sampled from the initial state, and an advantage is computed by subtracting a group baseline. This design ignores a defining property of agent sandboxes. They are deterministic, snapshottable, and resumable from any intermediate state. We argue that this property enables a fundamentally different rollout topology: rather than N independent trees of depth T, one can construct a single tree of N leaves whose siblings share prefixes, and therefore share variance. We instantiate this idea as Branching Policy Optimization (BPO), a sandbox-native RL algorithm that (i) adaptively snapshots the sandbox at high-entropy decision points along a backbone trajectory, (ii) forks K alternative actions per branch point and rolls out each to termination, and (iii) computes per-step advantages from sibling returns rather than from independent prompts. We prove this estimator is unbiased and has strictly lower variance than the trajectory-level baseline, with the reduction equal to the prefix-explained portion of return variance. On WebShop, ALFWorld, and SWE-bench Verified with Qwen2.5-7B and Llama-3.1-8B backbones, BPO improves success by 3.6--6.1 absolute points over GRPO and RLOO at matched compute, halves gradient-norm variance, and matches the best baseline using 38% fewer policy updates.</summary>
    <category term="cs.LG" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <category term="cs.CL" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <published>2026-07-15T09:37:36Z</published>
    <arxiv:comment>Accepted by WAIC Academic 2026</arxiv:comment>
    <arxiv:primary_category term="cs.LG"/>
    <author>
      <name>Bowei He</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Yankai Chen</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Xiaokun Zhang</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Xue Liu</name>
    </author>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2602.11619v2</id>
    <title>When Agents Disagree With Themselves: Behavioral Consistency as an Uncertainty Signal for LLM Agents</title>
    <updated>2026-07-15T00:10:32Z</updated>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.11619v2" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2602.11619v2" rel="related" type="application/pdf" title="pdf"/>
    <summary>Running the same LLM agent on identical inputs yields 2.3-4.2 distinct action sequences per 10 runs; this behavioral variance constitutes a training-free, black-box uncertainty signal that instantiates selective classification and distribution-free calibration for agentic systems. Across 8,000 runs of four models on 200 HotpotQA questions, consistent tasks (at most 2 unique paths) achieve 82-87% accuracy while inconsistent tasks (4 or more paths) achieve 41-65%, a gap that survives controls for task difficulty. Divergence concentrates at step 2 (50.5% of Llama tasks), and consistency metrics detect failures with AUROC 0.62-0.78. Exploiting this signal, selective prediction (answering only when k=3 runs agree) achieves 87-88% accuracy at 54-62% coverage, a 6-14pp gain over single-run baselines, and matches a split-conformal baseline without a held-out calibration set. A cross-benchmark validation on SWE-bench (50 tasks, 1,000 runs) preserves the consistency hierarchy while revealing an ~8x spread in mean trajectory length across models, and bootstrap analysis shows single-run evaluations misrank models 29.3% of the time.</summary>
    <category term="cs.AI" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <published>2026-02-12T06:15:14Z</published>
    <arxiv:comment>Accepted at the ICML 2026 Workshop on Statistical Frameworks for Uncertainty in Agentic Systems. 12 pages, 9 figures</arxiv:comment>
    <arxiv:primary_category term="cs.AI"/>
    <author>
      <name>Aman Mehta</name>
    </author>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.12338v1</id>
    <title>How Many Tasks Are Enough for Agent Benchmark Decisions? A Replay Analysis of Public LLM Agent Benchmarks</title>
    <updated>2026-07-14T04:36:41Z</updated>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.12338v1" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2607.12338v1" rel="related" type="application/pdf" title="pdf"/>
    <summary>Agent benchmarks often compare two agents after all tasks have run, but costly evaluations make partial runs tempting. A task fraction alone does not show whether a partial run supports the same pairwise conclusion as the completed benchmark. We study this question by replaying completed public task-level records from SWE-bench, AppWorld, and tau-bench. A partial budget counts as enough only when it supports the completed benchmark's decision, covers required task groups, and leaves no more than a target fraction of comparisons unresolved. The required task fraction varies sharply. At the strict 0 percentage point threshold on a 5 percentage point budget grid, AppWorld first meets all targets at 15 percent, tau-bench at 25 percent, and SWE-bench Verified at 90 percent; SWE-bench Lite does not meet all targets by 95 percent under the primary coverage rule. Partial-evaluation reports should state how much one agent must outperform another, how tasks are selected, what coverage rule is required, what decision rule is used, and how many comparisons may remain unresolved.</summary>
    <category term="cs.AI" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <published>2026-07-14T04:36:41Z</published>
    <arxiv:comment>KDD 2026 Workshop Agentic AI Evaluation and Trustworthiness</arxiv:comment>
    <arxiv:primary_category term="cs.AI"/>
    <author>
      <name>Wei-Jung Huang</name>
    </author>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.13091v1</id>
    <title>Self-Improving AI Coding Agents Through Accumulated Behavioral Rules: A Closed-Loop Framework</title>
    <updated>2026-07-13T21:13:46Z</updated>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.13091v1" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2607.13091v1" rel="related" type="application/pdf" title="pdf"/>
    <summary>LLM-based coding agents repeat the same classes of mistakes across sessions because they lack a mechanism to retain corrections from human review feedback. We present a closed-loop framework in which every accepted review comment is codified as a persistent behavioral rule, progressively expanding the set of error classes the agent can self-detect. The framework combines an accumulating rule set in a version-controlled instruction file, a self-review checklist executed before code submission, and automated validation that ensures rule set integrity as it grows. In deployment across a 35+ service microservices platform, the rule set grew from 5 to 18 behavioral rules, 15+ language-specific standards, and a 15-item self-review checklist, all derived from real review feedback. We present empirical results from 11 recorded working sessions spanning code generation, PR review, incident investigation, and cross service refactoring. We observe that accumulated rules shift review effort from low-level correctness toward design-level validation, achieve a measured 0% recurrence rate for ruled-against error classes, and transfer across heterogeneous agent interfaces. We compare our approach against related work in experiential LLM learning (Reflexion, ExpeL, Voyager) and automated code review (CodeReviewer, SWE-bench agents), showing that our framework achieves persistent cross-session learning without weight updates, operates on production codebases rather than synthetic benchmarks, and addresses an orthogonal dimension (behavioral consistency over time) that existing benchmarks do not measure. The result is a coding agent that improves with every review cycle, accumulating the engineering wisdom of its human collaborators without changing a single model weight.</summary>
    <category term="cs.SE" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <category term="cs.AI" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <published>2026-07-13T21:13:46Z</published>
    <arxiv:comment>Already presented and accepted in - 32nd ICE IEEE/ITMC Conference (ICE 2026)</arxiv:comment>
    <arxiv:primary_category term="cs.SE"/>
    <author>
      <name>Aditya Aggarwal</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Nahid Farhady Ghalaty</name>
    </author>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.12068v1</id>
    <title>Beyond Test Presence: Assessing the Quality and Robustness of Agent-Generated Tests in Open-Source Projects</title>
    <updated>2026-07-13T18:40:24Z</updated>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.12068v1" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <link href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2607.12068v1" rel="related" type="application/pdf" title="pdf"/>
    <summary>The integration of AI-powered coding agents into Continuous Integration/Continuous Delivery (CI/CD) pipelines has fundamentally altered how software verification is conducted. While these agents successfully automate the test generation, current evaluation benchmarks (e.g., SWE-bench) largely focus on pass-rates rather than the intrinsic quality of the generated tests. This raises the possibility of "stealth technical debt", in which test suites pass execution but do not offer comprehensive coverage or semantic value. We address this methodological gap through a large-scale, empirical comparison of 204,673 test artifacts which comprises of 24,941 human-authored files and 179,732 agent-generated files; sourced from the AIDev dataset. Using the Abstract Syntax Tree (AST) parsing with Python's naive ast module, we implemented a "white-box" static analysis framework to evaluate three quality dimensions: Assertion Strength (RQ1), Edge-Case Coverage (RQ2), and Flakiness Potential (RQ3). Our results present a nuanced inversion of traditional assumptions. AI agents performed better than humans in Edge-Case Coverage, with almost twice the variety of boundary checks (Variety Score: 0.62 vs 0.32) and a higher frequency of null-safety testing (13.40% vs. 8.3%), even though human developers had a slight advantage in Assertion Strength (88.1% strong assertions vs. 85.37% for agents). But this thoroughness comes at a price: due mostly to their reliance on file I/O and non-deterministic logic, agent-generated tests exhibited a higher risk of flakiness (Candidate Rate: 0.41 vs. 0.30). These findings suggest that while AI agents excel at rigorous boundary testing, they lack the "environmental awareness" needed to write stable, hermetic tests.</summary>
    <category term="cs.SE" scheme="http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom"/>
    <published>2026-07-13T18:40:24Z</published>
    <arxiv:primary_category term="cs.SE"/>
    <author>
      <name>Preet Jhanglani</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Zeel Kaushal Desai</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Vidhi Kansara</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Eman Abdullah AlOmar</name>
    </author>
  </entry>
</feed>
