Evaluating Agentic Code Repair Capabilities in Distributed Systems
Organizations: University of Southern California
Abstract
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 < 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.
Figures & tables
| Model | Thinking | Form | Total Cost ($) | Pass Rate % | ||||
| Sym. | +Context | (pp) | Sym. | +Context | ||||
| Claude Opus 4.6 | Adaptive High | API | 59.4 | 23.6 | - 60.3% | 67.7 | 67.7 | — |
| Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Adaptive High | API | 68.4 | 34.0 | - 50.3% | 41.9 | 61.3 | + 19.4 |
| GPT 5.4 | High | API | 25.0 | 21.4 | - 14.3% | 41.9 | 67.7 | + 25.8 |
| GPT 5.4 mini | High | API | 7.9 | 6.1 | - 23.5% | 45.2 | 61.3 | + 16.1 |
| GLM 5.1 (FP8) | Enabled | Open, Self-Host | 23.1 | 14.6 | - 36.7% | 32.3 | 50.0 | + 17.7 |
| Bug Category | Sym. | +Ctx. | (pp) |
| Concurrency hazards (n=4) | 32.5% | 75.0% | +42.5 |
| Replication & consistency (n=9) | 38.9% | 57.8% | +18.9 |
| Protocol & recovery (n=13) | 27.7% | 39.5% | +11.8 |
| Resource & delivery (n=5) | 34.0% | 48.0% | +14.0 |
| Metric | Sym. | +Ctx. | |
| Mean steps | 56.7 | 42.7 | 13.9 |
| Mean first-edit step | 32.2 | 20.5 | 11.7 |
| Mean tokens | 1.69M | 0.93M | 0.75M |
| Mean read actions | 23.9 | 17.3 | 6.6 |
| Mean explore actions | 10.7 | 6.7 | 3.9 |
| Mean edit count | 3.0 | 3.2 | +0.1 |
Appendix figures & tables17 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Project | Language | System family | Number of Cases | Tier-1 | Tier-2 | Tier-3 |
| Dragonfly | C++ | kv-store | 14 | 1 | 1 | 12 |
| NATS | Go | messaging | 9 | 5 | 3 | 1 |
| Kvrocks | C++ | kv-store | 8 | 4 | 3 | 1 |
| etcd | Go | kv-store | 7 | 5 | 2 | 0 |
| hashicorp/raft | Go | consensus | 6 | 4 | 2 | 0 |
| Consul | Go | service-mesh | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 |
| Project | License | Link |
| Dragonfly | BSL 1.1 | https://github.com/dragonflydb/dragonfly |
| NATS | Apache-2.0 | https://github.com/nats-io/nats-server |
| Kvrocks | Apache-2.0 | https://github.com/apache/kvrocks |
| etcd | Apache-2.0 | https://github.com/etcd-io/etcd |
| hashicorp/raft | MPL-2.0 | https://github.com/hashicorp/raft |
| Consul | BSL 1.1 | https://github.com/hashicorp/consul |
| Category | n | Share |
| Code investigation | 33 | 55.0% |
| Test output | 25 | 41.7% |
| Crash output | 12 | 20.0% |
| Runtime state | 3 | 5.0% |
| Race/sanitizer report | 3 | 5.0% |
| Debugger trace (GDB) | 2 | 3.3% |
| Benchmark | Cross-process | Code fix | Executable oracle | Debug-context channel | Languages |
| SWE-bench Verified [ 12 ] | ✗ | ✓ | ✓(unit tests) | ✗ | 1 (Python) |
| Multi-SWE-Bench [ 37 ] | ✗ | ✓ | ✓(unit tests) | ✗ | 8 |
| DebugBench [ 22 ] | ✗ | ✓ | ✓(unit tests) | ✗ | 3 |
| AIOpsLab [ 5 ] | ✓ | ✗ | ✓(telemetry) | ✓(telemetry) | — |
| CloudOpsBench [ 25 ] | ✓ | ✗ | ✓(telemetry) | ✓(telemetry) | — |
| DDBench (ours) | ✓ | ✓ | ✓(E2E & unit tests) | ✓(controlled) | 5 |
| Model | Thinking | Form | Total Cost ($) | Pass Rate % | ||||
| Base | +Evidence | (pp) | Base | +Evidence | ||||
| Claude Opus 4.6 | Adaptive High | API | 28.46 | 22.12 | - 22.3% | 73.3 | 80.0 | + 6.7 |
| Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Adaptive High | API | 27.47 | 21.42 | - 22.0% | 73.3 | 73.3 | — |
| GPT 5.4 | High | API | 10.75 | 10.35 | - 3.7% | 60.0 | 86.7 | + 26.7 |
| GPT 5.4 mini | High | API | 2.70 | 2.25 | - 16.7% | 66.7 | 73.3 | + 6.7 |
| GLM 5.1 (FP8) | Enabled | Open, Self-Host | 7.12 | 5.33 | - 25.1% | 40.0 | 46.7 | + 6.7 |
| Model | Thinking | Form | Total Cost ($) | Pass Rate % | ||||
| Base | +Evidence | (pp) | Base | +Evidence | ||||
| Claude Opus 4.6 | Adaptive High | API | 30.56 | 14.61 | - 52.2% | 85.71 | 92.86 | + 7.14 |
| Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Adaptive High | API | 21.32 | 10.47 | - 50.9% | 85.71 | 92.86 | + 7.14 |
| GPT 5.4 | High | API | 13.17 | 9.50 | - 27.9% | 78.57 | 92.86 | + 14.29 |
| GPT 5.4 mini | High | API | 2.37 | 1.75 | - 26.2% | 85.71 | 92.86 | + 7.14 |
| GLM 5.1 (FP8) | Enabled | Open, Self-Host | 9.47 | 10.41 | + 9.9% | 57.14 | 50.00 | - 7.14 |
AI Coding Agents
AI coding agents use language models and software tools to plan, edit, test, and maintain code with varying levels of autonomy.
See all 326 papers