Accelerating AI-Powered Research: The PuppyChatter Framework for Usable and Flexible Tooling

Large Language Models (LLMs) are integrated into software systems and AI services, making efficient LLM serving a concern for software engineering. Serving LLMs is challenging because inference requires computation, memory, GPU resources, and execution while maintaining latency and throughput. Although prior research has proposed LLM inference, optimization, and serving techniques and frameworks, little is known about how they are adopted in practice. In this study, we investigate the use of LLM serving frameworks and serving methods in open-source software systems. We identify and analyze five LLM-specific frameworks: vLLM, SGLang, TensorRT-LLM, LMDeploy, and FlashInfer. We examine how these frameworks and techniques are adopted individually and in combination, how adoption varies across categories of LLMs, and how repositories differ in intent, focus, use case, and architectural design. Our results show that vLLM is the most visible framework in popularity and adoption, while parallel computation, memory management, and network pruning are the most frequently used serving-method categories. Multi-framework usage is limited, suggesting that developers rely on a single serving framework; however, combined frameworks connect complementary capabilities across the serving stack. Framework adoption varies across model families, modalities, model sizes, domain specializations, and deployment settings. Repository-level analysis shows that LLM serving frameworks support applications and architectures, including Reinforcement Learning (RL)-based reasoning, multimodal generation and understanding, microservices, and cloud infrastructure. Overall, this study provides a large-scale empirical characterization of LLM serving framework adoption in practice and offers insights for researchers, framework maintainers, and practitioners working on LLM systems.

The rapid proliferation of Agent Development Kits (ADKs), SDK-level frameworks for building LLM-powered autonomous agents, has outpaced any empirical understanding of how framework choice affects agent performance. We propose \textbf{LLM-as-a-Developer}, a methodology that replaces human developers with an LLM coding agent that learns each framework's API from documentation, writes agent code, and iteratively repairs it through a validate-and-feedback loop until tests pass. By holding the developer constant and varying only the framework, generation effort becomes a quantitative proxy for API usability and the resulting agents provide a controlled measure of framework effectiveness. We implement this in \textbf{ADK Arena}, a fully automated pipeline with per-framework Docker isolation, a three-level validation pipeline, and benchmark adapters for SWE-bench, $τ^2$-bench, Terminal-Bench, and MCP-Atlas. Evaluating all 51 popular Python ADK frameworks (204 agent--benchmark pairs), we find that: (1)~generation succeeds for 57% of runs, and its cost varies 5.6$\times$ across frameworks ($0.6 to $3.4 per agent), a quantitative proxy for API complexity, though cost alone does not predict success; (2)~no single framework dominates: the best single-benchmark ADK agents resolve up to 80% of tasks and can even \emph{beat} general-purpose frontier coding agents at a fraction of the cost, yet the median framework resolves only 32%; (3)~across information-source ablations, genuine framework usage stays within a narrow 28--40% band (highest with raw source access and still 33% with no reference material at all), indicating that documentation, source code, and parametric knowledge are largely substitutable rather than any one being a hard bottleneck.

Anthropomorphism, or the attribution of human traits to technology, is an automatic and unconscious response that occurs even in those with advanced technical expertise. In this position paper, we analyze hundreds of thousands of research articles to present empirical evidence of the prevalence and growth of anthropomorphic terminology in research on large language models (LLMs). We argue for challenging the deeper assumptions reflected in this terminology -- which, though often useful, may inadvertently constrain LLM development -- and broadening beyond them to open new pathways for understanding and improving LLMs. Specifically, we identify and examine five anthropomorphic assumptions that shape research across the LLM development lifecycle. For each assumption (e.g., that LLMs must use natural language for reasoning, or that they should be evaluated on benchmarks originally meant for humans), we demonstrate empirical, non-anthropomorphic alternatives that remain under-explored yet offer promising directions for LLM research and development.