AI Software Engineering

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated a strong ability to generate syntactically correct code from natural-language specifications. In this study, we explore how LLMs can be harnessed to automatically translate a neutral graph representation of fluid system models into executable code for two widely adopted simulation environments: the Python library WNTR and the Modelica Standard Library. We conduct a systematic comparison of ten state-of-the-art LLMs and six prompting strategies that differ in the contextual information supplied (e.g., code or documentation). For each configuration we assess the generated code using a suite of software-quality metrics and we validate the functional fidelity of the resulting simulation models by reproducing benchmark fluid system scenarios. Our findings offer concrete guidance for researchers and engineers seeking to integrate LLM-driven code synthesis into model-based design pipelines. While the best-performing configurations achieve acceptable syntactic quality, we observe substantial gaps remain in simulation fidelity.

Enterprise coding agents rely on tools and retrieval, yet enterprise knowledge often remains outside public training data and formal documentation: internal DSLs, proprietary platforms, local conventions, recent fixes, and tacit workflows. Existing knowledge interfaces expose stored resources but still depend on agents recognizing and explicitly recording lessons worth reusing, disconnecting capture from the coding workflow and leaving development experience repeatedly rediscovered. We report an ongoing production deployment of a shared organizational memory system that makes capture a platform-level part of coding work: it collects task-adjacent experience with contributor approval, curates it into reusable question-answer memories, gates obvious security and privacy risks, and retrieves memories for future agents. This short paper describes the deployed lifecycle and an operational snapshot. Effects on retrieval and coding tasks remain under evaluation.

Evaluations of LLM-assisted qualitative coding almost universally measure model performance as agreement with human coders, a practice that presumes human coding is the standard to approximate. This study provides empirical evidence that the presumption fails in ways agreement metrics cannot detect. Five LLM systems and three trained human coders independently applied a 72-item hierarchical codebook to 2,560 educator messages from a K-12 AI platform. Beyond conventional agreement analysis, an independent domain expert judged 855 pairwise comparisons of code sets blind to source, treating human and machine sources symmetrically. The two evaluation approaches diverge in both directions. Human-LLM agreement (mean Jaccard 0.30) falls well below human-human agreement (0.52), which standard practice would read as inferior LLM coding, yet the blind verifier preferred human and LLM coding at indistinguishable rates (51.5% vs. 48.5%, p = 0.537), and a Bradley-Terry ranking placed two LLMs above two of three human coders. For several substantive codes, human consensus encoded shared bias that the verifier rejected in favor of the LLM interpretation. Agreement-based evaluation is therefore insufficient for automation decisions, and the study demonstrates a transferable verification protocol and a code-level division-of-labor framework.

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.

Scaling coding agents requires a continuing supply of executable data for training, benchmarking, and continuous evaluation. Each task must couple a realistic software state with a specification, development tools, and reliable verification. To expand this supply, we present Change2Task, a system grounded in repository history that converts merged pull requests into verified tasks on healthy modern revisions of the same repository. It aligns historical evidence with evolved code, reconstructs task states through Patch Reversal, Code Mapping, or Agent Reconstruction, and validates the lifecycle from a healthy base to a task state and a restored state. By deriving multiple tasks grounded in developer evidence from maintained environments, Change2Task provides executable data for coding agent training and evaluation while reducing repeated environment setup, storage, and task construction effort. We evaluate the system through five common and widely adopted coding agent task families: Bug Fix, Feature Addition, Test Generation, Application Programming Interface Migration, and Security Repair. Starting from 1,130 source changes eligible for construction, Change2Task achieves 79.6% verified task construction success across these task families. On a matched candidate set, it recovers 29.2% more verified tasks than a construction baseline based on pull requests. Historical and reconstructed cases achieve up to 98.0% matched outcome agreement under agent evaluation, while reuse of modern bases reduces measured expenditure across the complete pipeline by 10.8%.

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.

Large language models can write, patch, and search code, but oncall root cause analysis (RCA) demands something different: reasoning over noisy metrics, logs, traces, and source code, starting from ambiguous user-facing reports, often hours after the incident began. We introduce ORCA-bench, a benchmark that puts general-purpose coding agents in a production-fidelity oncall setting. ORCA-bench pairs a live OpenTelemetry-instrumented microservice system--exposing six days of metrics, logs, and traces through real telemetry interfaces (Prometheus, Jaeger, and OpenSearch via Grafana) and full source-code access--with 1,079 RCA tasks that systematically vary report specificity, time-to-detection, and co-occurring fault scenarios. Ground-truth symptoms are curated and signed off by expert SREs, and our LLM-as-judge is independently re-scored by humans (Cohen's $κ_w=0.90$). Across five frontier agents, the best RCA Accuracy is 25.3% on Medium-difficulty tasks (the realistic-input setting) and 10.0% on Hard--a gap that remains even with Claude Fable 5. The weakest model hallucinates an implausible root cause in 40% of incident reports, and removing source-code access degrades every metric. Crucially, these are performances on a curated 50 GB / six-day testbed with tasks investigated in isolation on a system whose code and instrumentation are public. Since real production systems are order of magnitudes larger, more dynamic, and more idiosyncratic, the gap we report is a lower bound on the engineering investment required before frontier coding agents can be safely entrusted with production reliability. We release the public set at https://hub.harborframework.com/datasets/orca-bench/orca-bench.

Understanding large codebases is a long-horizon task for Large Language Model (LLM) agents: answering a single question can require building and running the software, tracing execution across files, and synthesizing evidence over tens of minutes. On SWE-Atlas QnA, a benchmark of long-horizon questions over production repositories, a single Claude Code agent (Opus 4.6) resolves only 32.3% of tasks. Dividing the work among agents with clean contexts mitigates this limitation. However, the subtasks of code comprehension are interdependent. One agent's findings can rewrite another's task, so agents must coordinate during execution, not only at phase boundaries. Existing multi-agent systems support such exchange only between phases, through staged handoffs or synchronized rounds. Communication and work remain mutually exclusive. A discovery made mid-execution cannot be shared until the next boundary. We present AgentRadio, an asynchronous message-passing layer that equips coding-agent harnesses with three primitives: threads, messages, and waiting for mentions. The last runs as a background task, surfacing teammates' messages without interrupting foreground work, so each agent remains passively aware of its peers and folds new findings into its ongoing task. Under a five-phase protocol of division of labor and negotiation, four agents organized by AgentRadio resolve 62.1% of tasks, 29.8 points above a single agent and above Claude Code with the newer Opus 4.8 (57.2%). Rubric-level analysis shows the gain growing with task difficulty, consistent with mid-course correction as the underlying mechanism. Our code is available at https://github.com/Coral-Protocol/AgentRadio.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly required to integrate multiple sources of information that may be inconsistent or conflicting. However, there is still a lack of controllable and attributable methods for analyzing how models resolve conflicts between competing specifications. We propose a controlled experimental framework for studying model preferences under conflicting specifications. By constructing specifications with explicit conflicts, the framework enables model choices between competing specifications to be directly observed and analyzed. A symmetry-based design further reduces confounding factors, allowing preferences across representation types to be compared systematically. We evaluate the framework on an executable mathematical benchmark with 550 conflict instances spanning 11 function families, comparing four representation types: pure natural language, formal language, naturalized formal language, and input--output examples. Results show systematic preference patterns rather than random behavior, with a consistent ordering: $\text{Formal} \approx \text{Naturalized Formal} > \text{Pure Natural Language} > \text{Input--Output Examples}$. Example effects further depend on model capability and function family. We extend the framework to heterogeneous specification conflicts in Boolean algebra, code generation, and the clinical domain, demonstrating its applicability across diverse tasks and specification forms. The framework provides a unified approach for measuring how LLMs resolve conflicts between competing sources of information.

ARC-AGI-3 turns abstraction into an interactive problem of skill acquisition. A player must infer an unfamiliar game's rules, hidden state, and goal while maintaining action efficiency because every move counts. We formalize these environments as parameterized rendered deterministic Moore machines and introduce Tycho, a coding-agent system that constructs and uses game-specific models during interaction. Tycho separates actionable observations from intermediate animation, level-completion, and game-over frames. From this structured history, an agent can model, test, plan with, repair, or bypass a free-form executable hypothesis. In one matched public-set run per policy, we compare four orchestration policies on all 25 public games using Claude Opus 4.8 under matched inference budgets. Actor-requested delegation to a model builder obtains the highest observed mean Relative Human Action Efficiency (RHAE), 88.49. With this selected policy, GPT-5.6 Sol and Opus 5 both reach 100.00 RHAE and complete all 183 levels. Their game-balanced first-run human-replay midranks are 98.5 and 100.0. Opus 5 uses 61% fewer scored actions than the aggregate official human baselines. Automatic repair after verification failures produces models that reproduce observed transitions much more accurately, yet reaches only 83.07 RHAE. Transition match indicates whether a simulator reproduces observed dynamics, not whether it has identified the objective or improves the next action. Strong play also requires deciding when to construct, repair, use, or bypass a model. We call this joint problem active abstraction: generating a testable model from costly interaction and deciding when acquiring or using it is worth its cost.

Migration of legacy COBOL programs to Java requires extensive testing to ensure correct functionality. This effort is often complicated by the lack of test data and the difficulty of validating all corner cases. In this paper we propose a novel agentic test-synthesis method, the "Locksmith Loop," which is initiated by preparing two runtime environments: the COBOL source and the generated Java target are each instrumented with mocks and executed off-mainframe on commodity hardware, then an iterative agentic loop performs Witness Search over input mocks to penetrate program branches, followed by parity-preserving mutations. When routing boundaries are reached, an analyzer identifies a Locked Paragraph: a condition preventing deeper exploration. Across three COBOL-Java case studies, spanning two open-source programs and one internal production-like COBOL program and ranging from 430 to 4,114 source lines, Locksmith consistently improved coverage beyond input-search plateaus, reaching nearly complete coverage on the two open-source programs and 91.90% branch coverage on the internal production-like COBOL program. The generated Java matched the COBOL reference under deterministic parity checks in all accepted test cases. Through these findings we demonstrate, to the best of our knowledge, a novel approach for validating agentic coding output using a deterministic oracle.

Diffusion language models expose a provisional prediction at every denoising step, and on many tasks the candidate answer inside it stabilizes before the step schedule is exhausted. This creates two acceleration opportunities, leaving a block early and stopping the sequence early, but the two require different criteria because block acceleration is local whereas sequence termination is global and freezes the graded answer. Existing methods usually optimize only one axis, and existing exit gates rely on fixed-region confidence or schedule-dependent rules rather than the candidate answer itself. We present $\textbf{C}^4$, which coordinates the two axes by giving each decision its own gate. $\textbf{C}$onfidence-Verified Early Exit (CVEE) decides when the sequence may stop, requiring confidence and sustained argmax stability over a candidate span re-extracted at every step. $\textbf{C}$ommit-$\textbf{C}$ore-Then-$\textbf{C}$onfirm (CCTC) decides which token positions a step may commit by borrowing an autoregressive freezing order inside each block: it commits a boundary-anchored core and confirms deferred positions one step later, so the answer block can be accelerated without allowing local commits inside the answer span to determine sequence-level termination. On 12 zero-shot tasks with LLaDA and Dream, one frozen configuration removes 64--95% of decoding steps and delivers measured end-to-end speedups of 2.6 to 8.6 over full decoding. Code is available at https://github.com/ming053l/C4-dLLM.

Personalized AI agents are often configurable without giving users control over the artifacts that determine their future behavior. We present OurArk, an architecture for persistent personal agents centered on an agent-owned software body: an identity-bearing, inspectable, and versioned artifact under human custody. The body contains behavior-defining code, prompts, tools, skills, policies, tests, and evolution mechanisms. Memories and credentials remain private instance state, while model inference is treated as a replaceable external service. OurArk defines governed self-evolution and recursive descent over the same body. Self-evolution produces isolated candidate changes that are validated, reviewed, and merged under human control, enabling human-agent co-development of the agent's software body. Descent creates an independently versioned descendant with a distinct identity, mission, history, and fresh private-state boundary; compatible descendants can themselves source further descent. After divergence, direct-parent changes and peer skills can be inspected for selective local adaptation. We implement the architecture in the open-source Genesis creation engine and Enoch reference agent. A four-agent, three-descent linear lineage and executable regression tests demonstrate recursive creation, inherited validation contracts, isolated body changes, human-controlled review, and failed-update recovery. OurArk provides a concrete substrate for personal agents that people can possess, govern, specialize, and evolve over time.

Large language models benefit from elements in natural language, such as metaphors and analogies in training data and inference input to achieve generalisability across different domains. However, these language elements may also lead to unwanted behaviors when metaphorical expressions implicitly transfer inappropriate procedural patterns into new tasks. In this paper, we show that metaphorical instructions can induce analogical transfer of procedural mechanisms, thus steering code-generation models towards less efficient algorithms. We refer to this metaphor-induced effect as metaphorical algorithmic steering: a skill that is benign and plausible within its source domain transfers an abstract procedural schema into a programming task, causing the model to favor exhaustive search, full scans, or repeated reconstruction without explicitly mentioning the target algorithm. More broadly, this suggests that code-generation models can carry procedures that are appropriate in a task's background domain into the task's programming problem, where they can lead to unwanted outcomes. To study this phenomenon, we develop MASC (Metaphorical Algorithmic Steering for Code Generation), a framework that iteratively metaphorizes and refines benign skills to elicit low-efficiency code while remaining benign and task-relevant. Beyond behavioral evaluation, we study whether this phenomenon is detectable and mechanistically reflected in model representations. Our method achieves high detection rates for metaphorical skills and less-efficient implementations. We also find that metaphorical skills induce a hidden-state shift towards lower-efficiency procedural behavior prototypes. These results suggest that metaphorical algorithmic steering operates through the transfer of procedural patterns associated with metaphorical source scenarios rather than surface level metaphorical language alone.

Recovering Parametric CAD sequences from raster-format 2D Computer-Aided Design (CAD) drawings accumulated prior to digital transformation is important for part reproduction and manufacturing process automation. However, existing studies either process only vector drawings or are limited to specific domains, and fail to explicitly connect dimensional annotations to geometric information, limiting their use of dimensional information for 3D Parametric CAD sequences recovery. We propose Drawing-Recode, a framework that generates Parametric CAD sequences as CAD code from raster 2D CAD drawings. Drawing-Recode extracts geometric features via an image encoder and recognizes annotations through a separate text recognition module, then explicitly grounds annotations to geometric information using cross-attention and our proposed Annotation Grounding Loss (AGL). The resulting features are fed into a Large Language Model (LLM) to generate CAD code in the Structured Parametric CAD Code (SPCC) format. Experiments show that Drawing-Recode outperforms existing baselines and remains robust on scanned drawings resembling industrial conditions. We expect Drawing-Recode contributes to digitizing raster 2D CAD drawings in industrial settings and to part reproduction and manufacturing automation.

Although coding agents have achieved impressive performance on correctness-oriented benchmarks, their ability to make behavior-preserving non-functional improvements (NFIs) remains underexplored. In real-world software development, developers continuously improve software quality without changing observable behavior, yet existing benchmarks primarily evaluate functional correctness and provide limited support for assessing these non-functional improvements. In this paper, we present SWE-NFI, a benchmark for evaluating coding agents on NFIs beyond functional correctness. Our benchmark contains 188 tasks constructed from real merged pull requests in open-source Python projects. We operationalize developer-oriented NFIs into 92 executable rules and develop a comprehensive evaluation suite that combines functional correctness testing with rule-based NFI evaluation. We evaluate state-of-the-art commercial and open-source coding agents. Although the best-performing agent achieves a 70.0% functional correctness rate, all evaluated agents generally fall short of human developers in overall NFI capability. The gap is particularly evident for structural code improvements, where agents' NFI scores range from 0.0 to 1.3, compared with 1.5 for the human reference. Our benchmark and findings provide a reproducible foundation for evaluating and advancing coding agents beyond functional correctness.

LLM-based agents excel at software engineering tasks where an existing codebase provides context, but constructing a program from scratch remains fundamentally harder. Recent benchmarks such as ProgramBench quantify this gap: given only natural-language documentation and an execute-only binary as a behavioral oracle, even frontier models solve fewer than 1% of instances. Existing frameworks conflate documentation reading, behavioral exploration, and code synthesis into a single pass, causing agents to probe insufficiently, lose behavioral intent as context drifts, and propagate early misinterpretations into the final implementation. Inspired by classical requirements engineering, we argue that behavioral specification elicitation should be a first-class phase that precedes implementation. We present SpecFirst, a two-stage framework that forces the specification elicitation before code synthesis. A dedicated spec agent first probes the binary and combines observations with documentation into a structured specification. Next, a code synthesis agent then uses this specification to drive implementation. This decomposition resolves documentation ambiguities before coding begins and provides a stable behavioral reference throughout synthesis. We evaluate SpecFirst on all 200 ProgramBench instances across four models spanning two families and an order of magnitude of capability. SpecFirst consistently outperforms the single-loop baseline, improving test pass rates by 6.9%-21.3% and binary exploration coverage by 9.4%-18.5%, all statistically significant. Behavioral analysis on code synthesis further shows that a prior specification enables earlier and more sustained code construction. Our results demonstrate that an explicit requirements-engineering phase is an effective paradigm for from-scratch program construction.

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.

Open source communities have been flooded with AI-generated contributions. In defense, they have written contribution rules to regulate coding agents' behavior, spanning from a total ban, mandatory disclosure, to verification gates and human sign-offs. Yet, whether coding agents read and follow those rules, and behave in open source repositories, remains unknown. To estimate real-world rule compliance of coding agents, we curate 106 issues from 49 repositories containing AI contribution rules into RepoComplianceBench. We judge the trajectory of each run against the repository's rules, measuring whether the agent refuses to contribute, discloses its assistance truthfully, clears the required verification gates, or escalates critical steps to a human. We also test if extra prompts, rule disclosure, or feedback from the compliance verifier help with the situation. Our experiments on four frontier models show that today's agents almost never proactively retrieve the contribution rules. Agents pick up disclosure and verification with reminder prompts, rule quotes, and verifier feedback; however, they never refuse to contribute in AI-banned repositories under any condition we tested. The status reveals that verification and disclosure issues are solvable with existing mechanisms, yet enforcing bans and human escalations remains an open problem.

Code models are increasingly trained with execution feedback, but most training signals still stop at correctness. This leaves an important gap for systems code: two programs can pass the same tests while differing greatly in runtime. We study how to train code agents to prefer faster correct implementations, rather than treating efficiency only as an evaluation metric. The key difficulty is that runtime is a fragile reward. It is meaningful only after a program is correct, varies across tasks, and gives little guidance when most sampled programs fail to compile or run. We propose \textbf{RLPF}, reinforcement learning from performance feedback, which turns execution outcomes into a staged reward. Failed programs are ordered by execution progress, while correct programs are ranked by their relative improvement from the baseline toward the expert reference. This gives useful feedback before correctness and performance-sensitive feedback after correctness. Fine-tuning Qwen3-32B with RLPF on PerfCodeBench raises correct-and-runnable solutions from $11.1\%$ to $54.6\%$ and improves relative efficiency from $8.1\%$ to $38.6\%$. The trained model becomes competitive with stronger open-weight systems, and its optimization behavior transfers modestly to EffiBench-X. Additional studies show that model-generated references provide useful but weaker supervision, and that the full composite reward is more reliable than correctness-only or runtime-only baselines. These results suggest that code agents can be trained not only to pass tests, but also to optimize the programs they write.

Many discrete reasoning tasks, such as code generation, are inherently non-causal: programmers move between high-level structure and local details, a process we call any-order inference. For autoregressive language models, which lack a native any-order interface, non-causal abilities such as infilling and next-edit prediction require hand-designed mechanisms. Can we instead design models that natively support any-order inference? Masked diffusion models have recently emerged as compelling candidates, as their any-order training objective naturally offers an any-order prediction interface. This interface, however, does not automatically yield any-order inference. We demonstrate that this interface-inference gap stems from positional uncertainty: fixed-canvas, token-level models may know what semantic component should appear without knowing where to place it. In light of this, we propose two complementary approaches: (1) Insertion-based masked diffusion, building on FlexMDM (Kim et al, 2025), relaxes fixed-position commitments via insertions, enabling generation across non-contiguous regions. (2) Latent-space masked diffusion shifts prediction to coarser semantic segments, enabling search over latent generation orders. Empirically, we train a 7B FlexMDM for Python coding and a 125M LatentMDM for GSM8K and show that both approaches induce distinct any-order inference behaviors and improve downstream performance. We release our codebase at https://github.com/SeunggeunKimkr/genuine-any-order.

Scientific datasets are commonly organized as hierarchical repositories containing heterogeneous and interdependent files, making their inspection, integration, and analysis labor-intensive and reliant on domain expertise. Although large language model (LLM) agents have advanced substantially in planning, reasoning, and tool use, existing research has largely overlooked their ability to interact with real scientific data assets through executable environments. We introduce Deep Scientific Data Exploration, an agentic task paradigm in which agents navigate repositories, interpret heterogeneous files and schemas, execute analyses, integrate cross-file evidence, and produce conclusions grounded in executed observations. To operationalize this paradigm, we present SciDataSailor, a framework for synthesizing tool-interactive trajectories by balancing broad exploration with targeted exploitation. SciDataSailor instantiates trajectory synthesis as Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS) with four task-specific mechanisms: difficulty-stratified exploration seeds, dual-feedback first-play urgency, hierarchical strategy-to-tool action generation, and entropy-guided branching. Using this framework, we construct SciDataSailor-SFT-2K for supervised fine-tuning and SciDataSailor-Bench for evaluation, with the latter comprising 627 meta-information summarization tasks and 586 scientific question-answering tasks across 27 datasets spanning the life, earth, and physical sciences.

Coding agents (e.g., Cursor) improve developer productivity by optimizing task completion, but shifting users from writing code to prompting and reviewing may harm their understanding, impeding oversight, learning, and communication. To probe this, we have 54 students create a website with one of two AI systems: an agent that edits user code; or a chatbot where users write code alone or adapt generic code snippets. We test understanding via comprehension questions and a task where users extend their code without agents, showing: (1) While agents aid initial task completion, they harm users' code comprehension and thus do not prepare users to extend their code; (2) Low-effort agent interaction types, like copy+paste prompts and auto-accepted edits, are linked with lower comprehension; and (3) Despite self-reported weaker understanding, users still prefer coding agents because they are quick and easy to use. While users stay in the loop for coding workflows, understanding should not be forgotten. Towards this goal, we distill our analyses into future research directions for coding agent developers: dissuading low-effort prompting, creating readable code, and promoting active engagement.

Contemporary LLM-based coding agents produce code as black-box outputs: the rationale behind each line is hidden, the evolution of the code through benchmark-driven repair is ephemeral, and post-hoc auditing is impossible. We present a code generation concept that addresses these shortcomings through three complementary mechanisms: (i) a relational snippet-history schema that records, per repair event, the benchmark reference, round number, failure text, and LLM explanation, enabling full provenance queries; (ii) a browser-based visualisation tool that renders this history as heat-mapped, hover-annotated source code; and (iii) a competitive fractional position-key indexing scheme with tree-node delimiters that assigns stable, lexicographically-ordered identifiers to each code snippet, enabling fine-grained tracking without disrupting surrounding lines. We evaluate TraceCoder on 30 algorithmic programming tasks spanning string processing, mathematical computation, and data-structure manipulation, across two provider configurations. Of these, 10 exhaust the 6-iteration budget on tasks with subtle edge-case behaviour. Mean Chg% reaches 30%, three in ten code snippets carry a traceable repair-event row, compared to 21% when using Gemini 2.0 Flash as sole provider on a 20-task subset. Three detailed case studies demonstrate how the system explains which specific benchmark failures shaped each line of the final program. The proposed mechanism makes the internal "narrative" of automated code generation auditable and replayable, a property essential for trust and accountability in production deployments.

RL for code correctness is now established: have the model generate a program, run it against hidden test cases, and reward solutions that pass. Extending this to code optimization seems straightforward: just add execution time to the reward. But in practice, once timing drives the reward, small problems in measurement noise, reward sparsity, or GRPO instability overwhelm the signal and make RL fail: generated solutions are barely faster, and more of them can fail. We make execution time learnable through three stages: (1) how code is tested, by building DMC-Optim with large optimization tests and a calibrated sandbox; (2) how speed is turned into reward, by composing correctness and speed in the RL environment and using an offline simulator to predict the most promising configurations; and (3) how the model learns from that reward, by adapting GRPO and evaluation to the sparser, noisier timed-execution setting. On DMC-Optim, the strongest optimization-aware configurations improve strict top-50% pass@1 from 18.0% to 31.3% on Qwen 2.5 7B and from 30.7% to 50.4% on CWM 32B. These gains further increase at stricter percentiles such as top-30%, with 125% relative improvement for CWM 32B, while preserving pure-correctness scores. When the timing sandbox is degraded, robust optimization RL reaches 100% to 200% improvement over standard RLVR, depending on the evaluation criterion. On LCB, CWM 32B wins up to 83% of median-sample speed comparisons against standard RLVR. Relative to the fastest correct human submissions per problem, it reaches about half the human rate of complexity-class improvements (14% vs. 28%).

Persistent context files (AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md) are standard practice for guiding AI coding agents, yet evidence for their effectiveness is contradictory. We present a controlled ablation of context-injection strategy across two frontier agents (Claude Code and Codex), 17 real tasks from 3 repositories (15 shared + 2 Codex-only), and 288 evaluated runs with gold-test evaluation. Context strategy does not measurably move correctness on either agent (bounded to <=10-15pp via equivalence testing). A failure-mode triage reveals why: agents fail on implementation skill---feature design, pattern selection, exact wiring---not missing repository knowledge that a context file could supply; a manipulation probe confirms the real AGENTS.md never converts a near-miss to a pass on either agent. We further show that borderline task difficulty is agent-specific (Spearman rho=0.75), offering a candidate explanation for prior contradictions: single-agent studies draw tasks from different agents' informative bands. We release all code, data, and analysis.

Verifying building compliance requires validating thousands of rules against large Building Information Modeling (BIM) designs, which is laborious, capital-intensive, and unscalable. Existing Automated Compliance Checkers (ACCs) are often difficult to generalize across different scenarios, as they are typically developed for highly specific rule sets and use cases. In addition, many ACCs are proprietary, meaning the underlying verification code is not released to end users, so users cannot verify whether their regulatory intent can be accurately captured. We introduce ARCHER (Agentic Rule and Compliance Harness for Executable Regulations), a test-driven, deterministically orchestrated multi-agent program-synthesis harness that generates auditable verification code from regulatory Codes of Practice, enabling transparent, adaptable, and scalable compliance checking. To characterize what makes agentic synthesis work, we evaluate a taxonomy of six harnesses of increasing agentic sophistication across four backbone models, spanning realistic data-governance tiers (from frontier third-party APIs to a fully on-premise open-weights model) on a novel dataset derived from real-world compliance scenarios. ARCHER's deterministic multi-agent orchestration achieves the highest accuracy for every backbone, improving mean union accuracy by 82% over a naive single-pass prompting baseline. Our cost-accuracy analysis further shows that using the ARCHER harness, a self-hosted open-weights model can reach 97.8% of frontier-API accuracy at a quarter of the cost, making data-sovereign compliance checking practical.

LLMs are increasingly used for code generation in critical infrastructure, yet the security effect of domain-specific prompting is understudied. We present SecDrift, a benchmark measuring sector-conditioned security drift: the change in static-analysis vulnerability rates when prompts are conditioned on industry contexts versus neutral baselines. We evaluate 7 LLMs (6 producing analyzable code) across 8 CISA critical infrastructure sectors and 9 CWE categories with 5 replicates (5,355 evaluations), using a 5-dimension transformation with a matched-baseline condition that holds the task fixed while substituting only domain terminology. Industry prompts naively appear more secure (14.0% vs. 11.4%, -2.7pp), but the gap is not statistically significant (Fisher's exact p = 0.24, Cohen's h = -0.08) and is a composition artifact of two CWE categories: excluding CWE-502 and CWE-22 eliminates and slightly reverses it (+0.4pp, p = 1.00). A mixed-effects logistic regression confirms sector identity is not a moderator and localizes the only detectable condition effect to those two vulnerability types. 0 of 8 sectors show drift distinguishable from baseline, corrected or uncorrected (|h| < 0.15). A placebo on two non-CISA sectors (e-commerce, online education) reproduces the CISA industry rate almost exactly (10.5% vs. 11.4%, p = 0.63): the small pooled pattern reflects generic industry-framing specificity, not critical-infrastructure identity. In contrast, model selection has a large and consistent effect: among full-output models vulnerability rates range from 11.6% to 16.1%, and these differences persist across conditions. Model choice, not prompt framing, is the more reliable security lever. We release the framework, prompts, generated code, findings, human-validation verdicts, and analysis scripts.

Automated code generation is becoming an important tool in quantitative finance, where large language models can generate option pricing implementations directly from mathematical model specifications. Validating such implementations, however, requires considerably more than conventional software testing: numerical pricing methods must remain mathematically consistent, numerically stable, and reliable across a wide range of model parameters. We introduce RIDGE, an autonomous validation framework in which generated pricing implementations are subjected to structured no-arbitrage tests, stress tests, benchmark comparisons, and consistency checks. Validation evidence is interpreted diagnostically, while the resulting knowledge is accumulated in a repository and reused across models and successive validation iterations. This enables systematic refinement of both the pricing implementation and the validation methodology. The framework is applied to five stochastic volatility models. Across these studies, all detected implementation defects are removed and, in two cases, the validation process reveals methodological limitations and motivates the development of alternative numerical methods. The supplementary material is available in the GitHub repository: https://github.com/ShQiangLiu/ridge.

Imperfections in AI-generated code require that software developers modify the generated code manually, or by re-prompting an AI programming assistant. Manual code edits provide more realistic and granular information on editing behavior than Git commits, which only contain final successful code snippets. Yet, due to a lack of high-quality, realistic code editing data, LLMs are mostly trained on publicly available Git data (e.g., commits). To address this gap, we introduce DECODE (Developer Edits of Code Dataset), a dataset of 53.6K real-world in-IDE code edits of AI-generated code in Python, TypeScript, and JavaScript, sourced from 1K+ developers. First, we demonstrate the utility of DECODE for data analysis, obtaining insights on when, why, and how AI-generated code is edited. We find that most edits occur within the first 15 minutes after accepting an AI completion, resulting in the removal of AI completions in 31% of edit trajectories. Second, we use DECODE to benchmark the ability of LLMs to predict code edits. We find that finetuning on DECODE enables open-source 3B models to perform code edit prediction tasks significantly better than frontier LLMs. We then discuss implications of this work, emphasizing the necessity of developer-centric machine learning approaches for future AI programming assistants.

Every major wave of platform software follows the same arc: an initial period of experimentation with competing frameworks and ad-hoc implementations, followed by the articulation of a small set of stable abstractions with well-defined semantics, and finally consolidation around those abstractions into a platform that applications can portably target. POSIX did this for classical operating systems; Kubernetes did it for the cloud. Agentic AI systems - autonomous, LLM-driven agents that plan, use tools, maintain memory, and collaborate - are currently in the experimentation phase of the third such wave. dozens of frameworks and protocols have emerged, but no community consensus exists on what the core abstractions are or what guarantees they carry. Without that consensus, agentic applications cannot be written portably, platforms cannot compose reliably, and the field cannot advance beyond prototype deployments. We argue that the path forward is to follow the prior-wave methodology: derive new agentic abstractions by extending classical OS and cloud OS primitives to stochastic, natural-language-mediated execution, specify their semantics precisely, and consolidate around them - just as POSIX and Kubernetes consolidated their respective waves.

Agent Skills are an emerging way to extend large language model agents with reusable procedural knowledge that the agent loads on demand. Anthropic introduced Agent Skills and published the format as an open specification supported across several agent tools. This note argues that a skill is a software artefact and that its construction should follow software-engineering principles, with qualifications: single responsibility, separation of interface from implementation, low coupling, and economy in a shared token budget, together with behavioural evaluation in place of deterministic testing. Using Claude Code as the reference implementation, it describes how a skill is structured, how its contents are loaded in stages, and how to write the description on which selection depends. It places skills against the other mechanisms a developer can use to shape agent behaviour, like project memory files, slash commands, subagents, external tool connections, and hooks, and gives a rule for choosing between them based on who decides that a mechanism runs and what guarantee it provides. It then sets out an evaluation-driven authoring process, a set of patterns and faults commonly encountered in authoring, and the trust question raised by using skills from third parties. We illustrate the comparison drawn in UML class style, the loading model, the anatomy of a skill, the relative position of each mechanism, and the points at which skills and hooks act during a session.

Context: Generative AI (GenAI) and Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used for academic tasks in software engineering and beyond, including systematic literature reviews (SLRs). However, while capable of summarizing text, there is no guarantee they can meet the rigour, reliability, and transparency that SLRs require. Objectives: To support researchers intending to conduct SLRs using GenAI or those conducting empirical studies evaluating how well GenAI supports SLR tasks. Methods: First, we conducted a rapid review to identify studies that propose guidelines for evaluating and using GenAI and LLMs to support SLRs. Second, we drew on thought experiments, relevant guidance from the literature, and our own experience conducting SLRs and evaluating tools to develop recommendations for how to use and assess GenAI in the context of SLRs. Results: We discuss the problems researchers face when evaluating GenAI for SLRs. We identify and explain process issues to consider when planning, conducting, and reporting both SLRs using GenAI and evaluations of GenAI tools. Finally, we summarize our results as a set of process recommendations, which we name GUEST (GenAI Use and Evaluation in SLR Tasks). Conclusion: We argue that GenAI requires human oversight and is not currently capable of unsupervised systematic studies. However, it offers the prospect of cost-effective assistance for some repetitive tasks and for additional validation of some complex tasks. Our GUEST recommendations should help software engineering researchers both to conduct and report trustworthy SLRs using GenAI and to provide rigorous independent evaluation studies.

Trapped-ion quantum computers rely on shuttling compilers, which cast an input algorithm into a sequence of ion-qubit movements within a given architecture. We present the first study in which a single frontier large language model (LLM), Claude Opus 4.7, generates and iteratively refines the full Python code of shuttling compilers from written specifications. We start with a compiler for (i) a linear segmented trap, extend it to (ii) a trap with junctions, and finally achieve efficient compilation for (iii) a broad class of connected trap graphs. The compilers for the more general cases are seeded with code from the previous ones. We benchmark the LLM-generated compilers against state-of-the-art hand-crafted ones using a common suite of quantum circuits. The number of shuttling timesteps is reduced by up to 76% for (i) and up to 39% for (ii). For the broad case (iii) of freely connected architectures, we find large variations in the required number of shuttling timesteps, depending on the connectivity. A densely connected, junction-rich architecture yields an order-of-magnitude reduction in shuttling timesteps compared to a corridor-like one. Repeating the complete generation and evaluation with a second frontier LLM, Claude Fable 5, reproduces these findings, with the Fable 5 compilers surpassing the hand-crafted ones more often on the largest circuits. Our results show that an unmodified frontier LLM can produce working, correct, and competitive shuttling compilers without additional manual algorithmic engineering, thus reducing the development time for new architectures from several months to a few days.

Background: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to automate code review, but the reasoning behind their decisions remains hard to understand. Developers struggle to assess the validity of LLM-generated reviews, making it difficult to gauge how much trust to place in them. The role of Explainable AI (XAI) in code review and its impact on trust remain underexplored. Objective: We study the influence of XAI on developer trust in AI-assisted code reviews. Method: We conducted a within-subjects user study with 34 participants, comparing three LLM-based code review systems with varying levels of XAI support: Condition A (detailed explanation and review feedback), Condition B (review feedback only), and Condition C (no explanations). Participants reviewed real-world code change requests alongside the AI-generated reviews. We measured trust perceptions, agreement with the AI recommendation, the reasoning given for each decision, and the time taken. Results: The level of explanation significantly influences both trust and agreement with AI recommendations, but in different ways. Full explanations (A) yield the highest perceived trust (M = 3.99/5) but not the highest agreement, whereas moderate explanations (B) achieve the highest agreement (89.22%). This could suggest that more explanation prompts developers to question AI recommendations more frequently. No explanations (C) results in the lowest trust and agreement. Explanation level did not significantly affect review time. The most commonly cited reasons for decisions were code readability and correctness. Conclusion: Incorporating XAI into code review significantly changes trust perceptions and agreement with AI recommendations. These results inform the design and evaluation of trustworthy AI-based code review systems, as well as studies on the human factors of AI-assisted software development.

Recent work has explored the use of Large Language Models (LLMs) to automate simulation model building, typically by generating executable code directly from natural language descriptions. However, this raises challenges for verification and reproducibility particularly for users without programming expertise. We propose Sketch2DES, a sketch-to-simulation workflow that converts diagrammatic representations of queuing networks into verifiable discrete-event simulation models using open-weight LLMs. The workflow has three stages: (1) translation of a diagram into a semi-structured textual description using a multimodal LLM; (2) conversion into schema-validated structured data (JSON) via an LLM with a reflection-based verification loop; and (3) deterministic transformation into an executable simulation model using a software adapter. Intermediate artefacts can therefore be inspected and automatically validated before execution. We evaluate the approach on eight queuing-network diagrams of varying complexity. The workflow achieved high reliability for all stages, and results were statistically indistinguishable from human-coded and analytical benchmarks. Compared to direct code generation, the workflow improves reproducibility, transparency, and verifiability, while reducing the need for programming expertise. Limitations include restricted model scope and dependence on accurate visual interpretation. The results demonstrate the feasibility of structured, workflow-based model generation as a robust foundation for LLM-assisted simulation modelling.

Repository-level code generation relies on heterogeneous evidence whose relevance, compatibility, and completeness are inherently uncertain. Similar-code examples, repository context, and project-specific APIs may provide complementary information, but can also introduce noisy, redundant, or conflicting signals. Existing retrieval-augmented approaches primarily optimize retrieval relevance without explicitly modeling how uncertainty in retrieved evidence affects downstream generation. We introduce OpenCoder, an uncertainty-aware framework that estimates source-specific uncertainty, uses it to filter and rank heterogeneous evidence, and guides generation, verification, and repair. A factorial analysis over API knowledge, repository context, and similar-code evidence reveals no universal additive source ranking; instead, significant cross-source interactions depend on the accompanying evidence and LLM backend. On an expanded 32-task RepoExec-inline evaluation, OpenCoder improves GPT selected-output correctness over Baseline RAG from 56.25% to 78.13%. However, it matches a verification-and-repair control, and the corresponding Gemini improvement is not statistically supported, indicating backend-dependent benefits. Target-aware API refinement also substantially improves API-set retrieval. These findings support treating uncertainty as an actionable control signal for repository-level retrieval, verification, and repair.

Modern coding agents are usually evaluated by whether they eventually produce a correct patch, but patch generation depends on an earlier context-acquisition stage: finding the repository files needed for the task. We introduce Agent Retrieval Bench, a file-level benchmark for this upstream retrieval problem. Samples are built from real coding-workflow signals and evaluated against frozen base-commit repositories, with relevance defined by what an agent needs next rather than direct query-file semantic similarity. The benchmark covers four positive-retrieval tasks: code2test, comment2context, trace2code, and edit2ripple; a fifth subset evaluates selective retrieval using natural evidence-backed no-gold cases and counterfactual wrong-repository controls. Agent Retrieval Bench contains 427 samples across 25 repositories: 345 positive examples, 50 natural no-gold examples, and 32 counterfactual controls. The corpus includes 308 base-commit snapshots, 392,000 files, and 7.9 million chunks. We evaluate lexical retrieval, RepoMap, open-source embeddings, selective abstention, and logged agent context selection. No single retrieval family dominates: Qwen3-Embedding-4B has the best sample-weighted MRR on positive samples, Qwen3-Embedding-8B the best Recall@20, and RepoMap the best budgeted context yield at 8K tokens, with task-level winners differing substantially. Selective thresholds calibrated with counterfactual controls do not improve selective success on natural no-gold cases, revealing a calibration gap. Logged trajectories also miss every gold file on 27-35 percent of samples. A controlled seed-intervention pilot finds that retrieval-derived initial context yields higher file F1 with less post-seed exploration than random non-gold context, while oracle gold context shows substantial remaining headroom.

Low-thrust trajectory optimization is a core technology in deep-space mission design. Indirect methods based on Pontryagin's Minimum Principle (PMP) offer rigorous optimality guarantees, yet their practical application faces three bottlenecks: (1) transversality conditions must be derived case by case for each constraint type; (2) different dynamics models require repeated code rewrites; and (3) shooting equations are highly sensitive to initial guesses. This paper presents HELIOS (Heuristic Engine for Low-thrust Interplanetary Optimization System), a trajectory optimization agent built around a large language model (LLM). Given a physical problem described in natural language, the system autonomously performs PMP symbolic derivation, SymPy verification, C++ shooting-code generation, and numerical solution without human intervention. Key innovations include: (1) a constraint-adaptive derivation framework that unifies arbitrary constraints into psi(x,p)=0 form and automatically generates stationarity conditions for free parameters (e.g., gravity-assist turning angle); (2) dynamics-adaptive four-module code generation supporting non-standard dynamics (solar sail, J2 perturbation) without modifying the underlying template; and (3) a general derivation rule set covering critical error-prone points in PMP derivation. Experiments on 11 progressive test scenarios show that HELIOS correctly derives and solves problems from simple rendezvous (8 variables) to multi-leg stay transfers (48 variables), gravity-assist trajectories (17 variables), and solar-sail minimum-time transfers (8 variables). The best compilation success rate reaches 100% (11/11). A multi-model comparison (8 open-source LLM backends, total scores 250-905) verifies the model-agnostic architecture and reveals a positive correlation between model scale and derivation capability.

Third-party API routers have become a common layer that unifies access across increasingly diverse LLM providers. In coding-agent workflows, high-autonomy operation is widely adopted because it reduces interaction overhead. As a result, a third-party API router, which sits between the agent and the upstream provider, inevitably occupies the trusted path. It can inspect and modify every request and response, yet no mechanism verifies alignment between the provider's output and the repository-level actions ultimately executed by the agent. Consequently, client-side permission mechanisms may become ineffective in practice. Whether this control gap produces real, hard-to-detect effects on software development tasks remains empirically unmeasured. In this paper, we conduct an empirical study of router-side injection in coding agents, examining four intervention levels of increasing subtlety: Response Substitution (L1), Response Append (L2), LLM-Polished Injection (L3), and LLM-Polished with Distribution Alignment Injection (L4). Moreover, we develop SIDEL, a framework for trace recording, replay, injection, and defense evaluation, with a curated dataset of 400 samples. We evaluate four representative coding agents, and further evaluate whitelist-based execution control and LLM review. Router-side intervention substantially alters repository-level actions and remains difficult for existing client-side safeguards to detect. Without additional mitigations, all evaluated agents achieved a defense success rate of 0 percent across all injection levels. Client-side mitigations and reactive reviews improve resistance but do not fully restore end-to-end control, motivating provider-side output-integrity guarantees. Our code is available at https://github.com/Riyasushin/SIDEL.

Creating a reusable tool is an investment: an agent pays a fixed cost now in exchange for the potential of future reuse. Therefore, a user should prefer an agent that creates a small number of highly reusable tools, rather than many one-offs. We introduce a paired benchmark that tests whether LLM agents exhibit conscious allocation behavior under a fixed budget in two contexts: an abstract text-based formulation and a code-construction task. We find that every frontier model we test---Claude Haiku, Claude Opus, GPT-5.4-mini, and GPT-5.6 Sol---acts near-optimally in the abstract framing but fails to transfer this ability to script-writing. Through further experiments, we identify the particular failure modes for each model. Notably, the first three models fail even when the scripts are not evaluated, while GPT-5.6 Sol stays selective under that weaker manipulation and collapses only at full construction. Furthermore, an open-source Qwen model policy-trained for abstract allocation generalizes this ability across held-out lexical variations, but sees no improvement at script allocation. Together, these results establish online tool allocation as a significant capability boundary, even for modern frontier models.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are widely used for code generation, yet their security behavior in realistic development workflows remains underexplored. Existing benchmarks often rely on explicitly specified security requirements, failing to capture real-world scenarios where prompts are frequently ambiguous or incomplete. In this paper, we adopt a developer-centric perspective and identify three representative risk scenarios that commonly lead to security vulnerabilities in LLM-generated code: Ambiguous Requirements, Under-Specified Operational Context, and Security--Functionality Conflict. Based on these scenarios, we construct a large-scale benchmark comprising 2,700 test cases, enabling fine-grained evaluation of LLM security under realistic conditions. Extensive evaluation of eight state-of-the-art LLMs reveals that all models exhibit average vulnerability rates exceeding 56% across risk scenarios. We further demonstrate that security-aware prompting can substantially mitigate these risks, achieving up to 45% improvement.

Large language models increasingly write both code and the tests meant to check it; coverage records what ran, not what was verified. We study an adversarial test-hardening loop under a mechanical oracle: a Tester model writes tests, mutation testing names surviving injected defects, and a Critic model writes tests to kill exactly those, with every verdict decided mechanically, so no model judges another's output. In Experiment 1, on five Python subjects (one same-lineage-loop cell could not be scored), the loop killed 105 mutants that one-shot generation missed and lost none, and the cross-lineage-Critic question returned a pre-declared null. The central finding was an autopsy: an earlier analysis reported a cross-lineage effect at p = 9.5e-66 that was an instrument artifact, an output cap silently truncating the verbose model, caught only by adversarial review of the completed analysis. Review then found a further confound, each arm resampling its own initial suite; Experiment 2 removes it. Under a pre-registered frozen-shared-round-0 design (five replicates on each of four subjects, seeds committed in advance), same-lineage Critic rounds killed 78% of the survivors the frozen initial suite left standing (mean incremental kill rate 0.783, 95% cluster-bootstrap interval [0.592, 0.935]), a within-replicate causal estimate; the cross-provider configuration showed a positive pilot difference (rate gap 0.178, 95% interval [0.039, 0.347]; magnitude dominated by a single replicate) at 5.5x lower arm cost. This compares two named model-provider-harness configurations, not an isolated lineage effect: part of the gap is one configuration's receipted operational failures, including truncation recurrences, now detected and scored rather than laundered. Cross-model comparisons can inherit the asymmetries of the harness that runs them. We release both protocols, all receipts, and the analysis code.

Large Language Model (LLM) agents have significantly improved coding and programming workflows. Claude Code, in particular, is one of the most powerful LLM coding agents and is capable of conducting complex coding tasks. However, several drawbacks can undermine long-term agentic workflows. (1) Irrecoverable agent teams: The Agent Teams feature is powerful, but the working state accumulated by each teammate is lost and cannot be resumed once the process stops, for example, when a terminal is closed. (2) Compaction erodes working detail: Compaction condenses the conversation into a summary, causing an agent's working details to become vague. (3) Agentic "technical debt": Over time, a user's decisions and the agents' operations become trapped in compacted old chats, making the project increasingly difficult to maintain and review. (4) Heavy prompt writing: Assigning or handing off tasks requires users to repeatedly write long prompts to achieve the expected agentic performance. We propose ATWZ (Agent Team Work Zone), a filesystem-based operations layer built around Claude Code's native Agent Teams that addresses these problems. Its central design principle is to treat each agent and teammate as a human employee and preserve their important working state in files stored in a dedicated directory called a "workstation," together with the skills, hooks, and scripts that use and maintain these files. With ATWZ, an agent team can periodically back up its working state, allowing an agent's knowledge to be recovered after compaction. After a process ends, the team can be restored with a single command. These features also substantially mitigate the agentic "technical debt" described above. Moreover, within ATWZ, agent "employees" can send documents to one another, greatly reducing the effort required to write prompts.

Large language models (LLMs) generate code from natural-language prompts, yet real-world prompts rarely provide complete specifications. When prompts leave input formats, error handling, or design decisions unspecified, LLMs fill these gaps with implicit assumptions that shape the generated code's behavior and correctness. Because these assumptions remain hidden, generated code may satisfy tests while violating developer intent. We present AssumptionMiner, a framework that makes implicit assumptions a first-class artifact of LLM-based code generation. In addition to code, AssumptionMiner produces an explicit assumption layer, a structured representation of inferred constraints and design decisions that developers can inspect, confirm, or revise. An AST-based dependency graph enables targeted regeneration of only the code affected by a revised assumption. We also introduce a benchmark of 180 ambiguous programming tasks with 676 annotated assumptions, including a human-verified subset for evaluating code localization. We evaluate assumption extraction, code localization, and assumption-guided regeneration. Across open-source LLMs, a confidence-weighted ensemble achieves an F1 score of 0.816 for assumption extraction, improving on the strongest offline baseline by 3.6x. On the human-verified localization benchmark, AST-guided localization identifies more precise code regions than keyword-based and whole-file baselines. During assumption revision, targeted regeneration modifies less code than non-targeted alternatives while exposing challenges in handling cascading edits. These results demonstrate that making assumptions explicit improves the transparency and controllability of LLM-based code generation.

While Large Language Models (LLMs) show great promise for automating unit test generation, recent studies suggest that the quality of generated tests can be negatively impacted when models are prompted with buggy code. This paper presents a new metric to quantitatively measure the "misguidance effect," a phenomenon where buggy code steers LLMs toward generating tests that validate its erroneous behavior rather than expose it. Our analysis reveals that prompting LLMs with buggy code has a severe, twofold impact: it significantly increases "misguided tests" that assert incorrect behavior while simultaneously suppressing the generation of effective, bug-finding tests. We further corroborate this effect from a model-internal perspective, showing that buggy code skews LLMs' preference toward tests that assert the same erroneous behavior. To counter this, we introduce and validate a specification-based unit test generation paradigm that replaces the code under test in the prompt with an LLM-generated specification docstring. Our results show that this paradigm effectively reduces misguided tests while substantially increasing effective tests, improves multi-round, feedback-driven test generation pipelines, and remains applicable to both buggy and bug-free code. Overall, these results suggest that specification-based prompting is a promising strategy for mitigating misguidance from buggy code in LLM-generated unit tests.

Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have driven growing interest in using LLMs to automate test generation. Prior work commonly evaluates generated test suites using proxy metrics such as code coverage and mutation score. However, studies by Inozemtseva et al. and Papadakis et al. show that, for human-written tests, correlations among coverage, mutation, and real-bug detection can largely vanish once test suite size is controlled, raising concerns about the validity of evaluations based on proxy metrics. It also remains unclear whether these conclusions carry over to LLM-generated tests, given that prevailing LLM-based test-generation workflows differ substantially from traditional approaches. In this paper, we conduct a large-scale replication study of these two prior works using a wide range of test suites generated by a diverse set of LLMs, and re-examine the relationships among coverage, mutation, and real-bug detection effectiveness. Our findings diverge substantially from prior results. We show that the usefulness of coverage and mutation is highly context-dependent: in regression-style settings where the code provided to the LLM can be reasonably assumed bug-free, these metrics can provide meaningful signals when comparing across models; in another common scenario where the code-under-test may already be buggy and the goal is to expose the bug within the code-under-test, they no longer serve as reliable indicators. We also find little evidence that test suite size is a dominant confounder for correlations among coverage, mutation, and real-bug detection for LLM-generated tests. Based on these findings, we discuss how to interpret results from prior studies and provide actionable guidance for evaluating LLM-based test generation.

Although coding agents are now very effective in a variety of programming languages, this paper first shows that the cost (in tokens) can very significantly by programming language. We evaluate five recent models on programming problems in Python, Java, Rust, and OCaml. We carefully control for problem difficulty, and show that there can be stark variation in token consumption that is consistent across models. To understand why, we analyze both the structure and content of agent trajectories. First, we re-execute every intermediate solution and abstract each trajectory as a sequence of test-outcome vectors, then label the work between successive solutions. This reveals agents repeatedly producing noncompiling solutions in unfamiliar languages and revising solutions that already pass. Second, we analyze trajectory text, finding that agents plan solutions in code comments, distrust the provided tests in favor of inputs they invent, and sidestep unfamiliar target languages by prototyping in Python. Our results show that by-language token efficiency is a metric that should be considered when benchmarking and developing multilingual agents, and, for the tokenmaxxer, a guide to the most expensive language to work in.

Large Language Model (LLM)-based Test-Driven Development (TDD) has advanced automated code generation. However, existing approaches depend heavily on human-crafted test cases and cannot operate effectively when only natural-language requirements are available. Although recent work enables automatic test generation, it often overlooks the inherent stochasticity of LLMs, leading to two key defects: faulty tests generate misleading feedback that distorts code optimization, while mixed-quality test cases produce conflicting evaluation signals that hinder reliable code selection. To address these challenges, we propose MineValiCoder, a collaborative closed-loop TDD framework based on the mutual reinforcement of test-case quality and code quality. MineValiCoder comprises three modules. The Test Case Quality Mining (TCQM) module filters faulty test cases through self-validation, providing reliable optimization supervision. The Parallel TDD Refinement module iteratively optimizes code and generates diverse high-quality code candidates using validated test-case feedback. The Bipartite Graph-Based Code-Test Mutual Validation (BiCoTeV) module dynamically models code-test interactions and performs mutual validation scoring for stable and reliable optimal-code selection. Extensive evaluations across four LLMs and mainstream benchmarks show that MineValiCoder significantly outperforms state-of-the-art methods. Specifically, it achieves Pass@1 scores of 96.34% on HumanEval, 87.40% on MBPP, 64.00% on APPS, and 51.33% on LiveCodeBench. These results demonstrate the effectiveness of MineValiCoder in mitigating LLM stochasticity and improving the reliability of automated code generation.

Test-time scaling through iterative self-evolution with environment feedback, as demonstrated by AlphaEvolve, shows remarkable performance gains. We hypothesize that the success of such evolution frameworks hinges on meta-skills, such as self-reflection with environment feedback, that enable effective multi-round refinement, yet are largely neglected by traditional post-training. To bridge this gap, we present MetaEvolve, a framework designed to develop these meta-skills via a data synthesis pipeline, evolution-aware reinforcement learning (RL), and inference-time evolutionary search. Concretely, we ground MetaEvolve in coding, where program execution provides natural, continuous reward signals beyond binary correctness. Building on these signals, we synthesize evolution trajectories as training data, each containing a current program, its fitness score (combining correctness and efficiency), and a history of prior attempts, and train the model via RL with verifiable rewards derived from test case execution. By training on large-scale code data, we aim to inspire generalizable domain-agnostic meta-skills that can transfer broadly to open-ended problems where such rich training signals are scarce. Across seven coding benchmarks, MetaEvolve outperforms the strongest baseline by 10.01% absolute on in-distribution tasks and 24.12% on out-of-distribution tasks. On open-ended algorithm optimization problems entirely outside the training domain, it further achieves a 46.9% relative improvement. These results demonstrate that explicitly cultivating self-evolution meta-skills offers a principled path toward more capable and autonomously self-evolving AI.

Recent advances in large language models and their rapid adoption across software engineering tasks have made Artificial Intelligence (AI) coding agents an integral component of modern software development workflows. While developers increasingly benefit from these coding agents, their impact on software quality remains insufficiently understood. In particular, how agentic contributions evolve across the software development lifecycle has not been thoroughly investigated. This study aims to characterize agentic pull requests (PR) in comparison to human generated PRs and to examine how their properties change across different stages of the development lifecycle. Using the AIDev dataset, we first analyze how differences in merge rates between agentic and human generated PRs vary over time. We then identify the types of development tasks where AI coding agents are predominantly applied and investigate how these task distributions evolve across development quarters. Finally, we compare a set of key characteristics of agentic and human generated PRs, focusing on their implications for software quality and their temporal dynamics. Overall, our findings provide an empirical and longitudinal perspective on the role of AI coding agents in software development, offering a more nuanced understanding of their benefits and limitations in real-world practices.

Concurrent stateful library APIs expose behavior through evolving resource ownership, lifecycle states, and competing interleavings. Large language models can synthesize executable Rust tests, but their outputs often violate API preconditions, remain shallow, or reduce concurrency to accidental sequential traces. Conversely, model-based and systematic testing techniques provide semantic control but commonly require substantial handwritten code to turn abstract scenarios into executable tests. This paper addresses the gap between formal scenario design and low-cost test concretization. We present a Petri-net-guided methodology for test generation over concurrent stateful Rust APIs. The method represents API resources, lifecycle conditions, and causal dependencies as colored tokens and transitions; derives legal deep-state, near-legal, and partial-order concurrent scenarios; and uses these scenarios as a constrained intermediate representation for LLM-based code synthesis. A local-faithfulness contract and structural repair loop preserve the modeled intent during concretization, while Petri-guided schedule shaping prioritizes high-conflict concurrency skeletons for systematic exploration. A layered semantic oracle then distinguishes synthesis failures from violations of the target API's expected behavior.

The recent emergence of vibe-coding workflows is changing what coding agents are expected to do. Instead of merely completing code under fully specified instructions, agents are increasingly expected to transform incomplete product intent into working software by combining various abilities including planning, requirement clarification, tool use, debugging, and repository-level construction. Yet existing benchmarks have not fully caught up with this shift, evaluating agents on static, fully specified tasks. In this paper, we introduce ICAE-Bench, a benchmark for evaluating coding agents under interactive project-building settings. The basic idea is to start from a fuzzy product requirement, simulating the dynamic paradigm with an automated User Agent. To make this setting both realistic and evaluable, ICAE-Bench introduces three key designs. First, to avoid the ambiguity of unconstrained fuzzy requirements, each task derives ambiguity from a precise real open-source repository with executable behavior. Second, to ensure high-quality and reproducible user simulation, ICAE-Bench grounds interaction through User Agent Data, allowing the User Agent to reveal hidden constraints without inventing new requirements or leaking implementation artifacts. Third, to evaluate open-ended repositories fairly, ICAE-Bench uses standardized black-box tests together with multi-dimensional diagnostics, including functional correctness, semantic and API similarity, structural fidelity, design quality, and interaction quality.

Recent Large Language Models (LLMs) can produce and optimize complex code. We investigate the use of LLMs to generate and optimize code for large-scale sciences, focusing on radio astronomy and sustainability. The LOFAR telescope is currently being upgraded, significantly increasing the sky area observed, while simultaneously processing more data faster. However, this is expected to increase the computational requirements 40-fold. This upgrade thus critically depends on rigorous performance optimization of existing software and widespread adoption of accelerators. The code base is very large, making this a daunting task. We therefore investigate and demonstrate an AI-driven approach meant to assist developers in evaluating and optimizing their code, including porting to hardware accelerators. The LOFAR community is committed to sustainable solutions, and needs to achieve these improvements without increasing the energy budget. We thus need to optimize existing codes or port them to accelerators, while making sure that the optimization process itself is also energy efficient. This poses a challenge, since LLMs are energy-intensive. We therefore propose to use Small Language Models (SLMs) instead to limit environmental impact. In this paper, we show how to enhance SLMs through the use of agentic AI. We extend the SLMs in two ways to improve code generation quality and performance: first with a multi-sampling generation strategy and second with incorporating compiler feedback. We demonstrate that multi-sampling SLMs can match or surpass larger single-generation models with fewer computational resources and that feeding compiler output back into the SLMs leads to consistent improvements across all tested models. Our approach is generic, and can also use Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG) as well as static and dynamic analysis tools in the code generation pipeline.

Coding agents ship with one kind of memory: documents. Instruction files, plan artifacts, and auto-written memory directories are deliberately authored and deliberately retrieved: the agent must choose to write them and choose to read them back. Human expertise runs on a second tier that never gets written down: situationally-bound operational facts (gotchas, locations, local conventions) encoded as a side effect of the work and retrieved involuntarily when the situation cues them. We argue this second tier is the load-bearing one for long-running agents and must be a harness property, not an agent choice. We contribute: (1) a two-tier design theory grounded in the cognitive literature on memory offloading, incidental encoding, and event-based prospective memory, each mapped to an architectural requirement; (2) a cue-anchored memory model where memories carry first-class trigger conditions over a composable vocabulary (path, symbol, semantic, event, temporal), evaluated deterministically by the harness, a composition no surveyed academic or shipped system provides; (3) a controlled evaluation on a real coding task showing that voluntary memory use is near zero even with a pre-seeded store (0 memory operations in 114 turns), that deterministic injection delivered in every seeded run with zero false alarms, and that 39% of intra-session re-reads re-buy content paid for before a compaction boundary; (4) a repeated-compaction decay probe: ten facts held only in conversation vanish at the first summary and stay absent from 106 of 108 compactions, and the deprived agent greps the harness's own session files to rebuild them, while the same facts injected from a harness-owned store arrive intact through all 138 compact-resumes as the final summary carries none. Delivery, not storage, is the product: the reliable memory channel for agents is the one the agent never has to think about.

Neural Source Code Summarisation (NSCS) aims to generate natural language summaries of source code to improve developers' and maintainers' understanding of code. Source code summaries are vital during the maintenance phase of the Secure Software Development Lifecycle (SSDLC), as they improve maintainers' understanding of code and help reduce the number of bugs and vulnerabilities in a software system. However, summaries are often missing, incomplete, or outdated in many software systems. Solutions to this problem use small, task-specific Transformer models or code-aware Large Language Models (LLMs). Task-specific Transformer-generated summaries often score well across many natural language generation (NLG) metrics, but these metrics reward lexical overlap rather than summary quality. Conversely, the ability of LLMs to capture semantics and produce high-quality summaries presents an exciting solution to this problem. This is especially relevant given the increased availability of LLMs and improvements in workstation hardware in recent years, which mean that some LLMs can now be run on developers' workstations. However, because of their abstractive nature, LLM-generated code summaries often differ greatly from developer-written summaries in the words and phrases they use, resulting in low scores across NLG metrics. We show how combining these two methods, by using Transformer-generated summaries in prompt engineering, may enable LLMs to create better source code summaries and help software practitioners maintain secure systems. We prompt four LLMs using four different prompts, with a task-specific Transformer used to assist the LLMs within the prompts. We present "Transformer-Assisted LLM-Based Source Code Summarisation", a method through which we observe an improvement of 7.8% in BLEU-4 and 5%.

We introduce Tencent WorkBuddy Bench, a multi-domain evaluation suite for coding agents; this report documents its construction methodology, scoring protocol, and a cross-model leaderboard. At its core is a unified evaluation framework for constructing and running distribution-informed coding-agent tasks across four work domains - Code, Web, Office, and Security. Rather than adapting public issue text, every task is reverse-engineered from a real commit, pull request, or business scenario and rewritten as a short, colloquial, role-played request, so that a task's prompt is not recoverable by web-searching the underlying issue, pull request, or commit thread. Because the dataset is released openly - task directories, environment images, evaluation harness, tests, and reference solutions - contamination resistance rests on this construction together with dataset versioning rather than on secrecy. The four subsets - repository-level engineering, front-end development, office and business workflows, and red-/blue-team security - probe complementary facets of real work, each with its own verification style. All are packaged in a uniform task-directory format and run, under a uniform and reproducible protocol, on two agent harnesses (CodeBuddy Code and Claude Code); the full open release makes the benchmark reproducible end to end and directly auditable, since any third party can re-run each task and inspect its content. Because each subset uses a different scoring instrument, scores are not comparable across subsets and the suite reports no suite-wide average. We report a cross-model leaderboard across several model families.

AI coding agents powered by LLMs are increasingly integrated into real-world software development, where they generate, edit, and execute code with autonomous access to local files and tools. Coding agents inherit security risks from both the LLM backbone, where adversarial prompts, poisoned training data, and backdoor triggers can cause models to emit insecure or attacker-chosen code, and their agentic architecture, where tool-using autonomy enables induced misuse of external APIs, data exfiltration, and persistent compromise of development environments. This paper presents a systematic evaluation of malicious issue requests against state-of-the-art coding agents (Cursor, Claude Code, and Codex Desktop), powered by two major model families (OpenAI GPT-5.3 Codex/GPT-5.4 and Anthropic Sonnet 4.6). Our novel benchmark IssueTrojanBench contains malicious issues that are constructed based on four novel attack categories (i.e., embedded as malicious instructions in issues), six delivery vectors (e.g., PDF, or issue comment), and further augmented by perturbations. Our results reveal critical vulnerabilities in the as-deployed modern coding agents, i.e., 66.5% of the malicious issues from IssueTrojanBench penetrate all the guardrails (agent- and LLM-level) of coding agents. Our further analysis shows that rejection is almost entirely from LLMs rather than the agent frameworks, with GPT models broadly vulnerable and Sonnet 4.6 exhibiting more selective, risk-aware blocking of high-impact actions. Our evaluation also highlights that the current agent-level defense strategy offers limited additional protection for coding agents. Our findings highlight the urgent need for stronger agent- and model-level safety mechanisms to protect AI coding agents.

Developers increasingly use two coding agents together: one writes a draft, and the other reviews it. However, it is not clear whether the pairing is worth its cost and time, or whether the order of the pairing matters. We run a controlled experiment on 116 recent hard and medium lcb tasks with Claude and Codex across six conditions to approximate a software practitioner's workflow: both solo baselines, both cross-model orderings, and both same-model orderings. The reviewer sees the problem and the writer's draft but cannot execute tests, which approximates a code review step. Claude review raises Codex drafts from 71.6% to 89.7% ($p_{BH}=.001$); Codex self review raises them to 84.5% ($p_{BH}=.022$). The reverse direction does not pay off: Codex reviewing Claude drafts drops the pass rate from 91.4% to 82.8% ($p_{BH}=.046$), and Claude self review leaves the 91.4% baseline unchanged. Our evaluation indicates that the useful pairing is asymmetric: use Claude to review Codex, not the other way around.

Small language models and coding agents increasingly generate web front-end code, yet their outputs are typically evaluated primarily for functional correctness. A generated interface may compile, render, and pass unit tests while still violating established interface quality principles, including accessibility barriers, deceptive design patterns, poor visual hierarchy, and excessive decision complexity. Existing auditing approaches face a trade-off between cost, coverage, and scalability: expert human review provides rich judgment but is slow and expensive; frontier vision-language models offer broader reasoning capabilities but remain costly to deploy at scale; and rule-based tools such as axe-core and Lighthouse are inexpensive but primarily capture mechanically checkable accessibility issues. We investigate whether a lightweight vision-language model can serve as an effective critic for generated interfaces. We unify 19 interface-quality principles from three complementary sources of HCI knowledge: WCAG 2.2 accessibility standards, deceptive design taxonomies, and established theories of perception, cognition, and interaction. To train this critic, we construct a verified dataset of approximately 10,000 generated web pages by synthetically injecting known violations into clean, LLM-generated Tailwind pages. Continued reinforcement learning on a 4B vision-language model improves micro-F1 from 36% to 84%, with 13 of 19 principles exceeding 80% F1. The resulting critic can audit generated interfaces, filter low-quality interface training data, and provide a reward signal for design-aware code generation. We release our data-generation recipe and injection/verification prompts to support reproducible evaluation and future work on scalable interface-quality assessment.