Multi-Agent Coding

Large language model agents have made strong progress on software engineering, yet current systems suffer from a context coupling problem: the standard code editing interface conflates code inspection, modification planning, and edit execution within a single context window, forcing agents to interleave exploratory viewing with strictly formatted edit generation. Irrelevant context accumulates and edit reliability degrades. We propose SWE-Edit, which decomposes the editing interface into two specialized subagents: a Viewer that extracts task-relevant code on demand, and an Editor that executes modifications from high-level natural language plans -- letting the main agent focus on reasoning while delegating context-intensive operations to clean context windows. On SWE-Bench Verified, this decomposition raises resolve rate by 2.1 pp and cuts inference cost by 17.9%, with consistent gains across multiple reasoning-model families (Kimi-K2, MiniMax-M2.1, GLM-4.7). We further show that effective edit-format selection can be trained into a small model rather than requiring frontier-scale capacity: GRPO training on Qwen3-8B with an adaptive find-replace/whole-file-rewrite policy improves edit success by 12.5 pp and brings an 8B open-source editor to parity with GPT-5-nano on downstream SWE-Bench resolve rate. To enable rapid editor iteration, we release PR-Edit, a lightweight evaluation whose scores correlate strongly with SWE-Bench resolve rate. We release our code at https://github.com/microsoft/SWE-Edit.

Instructed code editing is a significant challenge for large language models (LLMs). On the EditBench benchmark, 39 of 40 evaluated models obtain a task success rate (TSR) below 60 percent, highlighting a gap between general code generation and the ability to perform instruction-driven editing under executable test constraints. To address this, we propose SAFEdit, a multi-agent framework for instructed code editing that decomposes the editing process into specialized roles to improve reliability and reduce unintended code changes. A Planner Agent produces an explicit, visibility-aware edit plan, an Editor Agent applies minimal, literal code modifications, and a Verifier Agent executes real test runs. When tests fail, SAFEdit uses a Failure Abstraction Layer (FAL) to transform raw test logs into structured diagnostic feedback, which is fed back to the Editor to support iterative refinement. We compare SAFEdit against both prior single-model results reported for EditBench and an implemented ReAct single-agent baseline under the same evaluation conditions. We used EditBench to evaluate SAFEdit on 445 code editing instances in five languages (English, Polish, Spanish, Chinese, and Russian) under varying spatial context variants. SAFEdit achieved 68.6 percent TSR, outperforming the single-model baseline by 3.8 percentage points and the ReAct single-agent baseline by 8.6 percentage points. The iterative refinement loop was found to contribute 17.4 percentage points to SAFEdit's overall success rate. SAFEdit's automated error analysis further indicates a reduction in instruction-level hallucinations compared to single-agent approaches, providing an additional framework component for interpreting failures beyond pass or fail outcomes.

Decompilation -- recovering source code from compiled binaries -- is essential for security analysis, malware reverse engineering, and legacy software maintenance. However, existing decompilers produce code that often fails to compile or execute correctly, limiting their practical utility. We present a multi-agent framework that transforms decompiled code into re-executable source through Multi-level Constraint-Guided Decompilation (MCGD). Our approach employs a hierarchical validation pipeline with three constraint levels: (1) syntactic correctness via parsing, (2) compilability via GCC, and (3) behavioral equivalence via LLM-generated test cases. When validation fails, specialized LLM agents iteratively refine the code using structured error feedback. We evaluate our framework on 1,641 real-world binaries from ExeBench across three decompilers (RetDec, Ghidra, and Angr). Our framework achieves 84-97% re-executability, improving baseline decompiler output by 28-89 percentage points. In comparison with state-of-the-art LLM-based decompilation methods using the same GPT-4o backbone, our approach (84.1%) outperforms LLM4Decompile (80.3%), SK2Decompile (73.9%), and SALT4Decompile (61.8%). Our ablation study reveals that execution-based validation is critical: compile-only approaches achieve 0% behavioral correctness despite 91-99% compilation rates. The system converges efficiently, with 90%+ binaries reaching correctness within 2 iterations at an average cost of $0.03-0.05 per binary. Our results demonstrate that constraint-guided agentic refinement can bridge the gap between raw decompiler output and practically useful source code.

Translating natural-language descriptions of physical phenomena into executable simulation code requires both programming expertise and physical reasoning. Current large language models (LLMs) lack this combination: they frequently produce code that runs but simulates the wrong physics. We introduce PhysCodeBench, the first benchmark for this task, with 1,200 expert-validated examples spanning four physical domains. Its evaluation suite, PhysCodeEval, goes beyond executability and visual fidelity to measure physical correctness directly from the engine state via conservation-law residuals and expert-written assertions, and supports cross-engine evaluation to disentangle physics reasoning from API fluency. As a reference method, we propose the Self-Corrective Multi-Agent Refinement Framework (SMRF), which decouples physics-aware error correction from code generation through specialized agents. This design is motivated by our finding that targeted correction, rather than generic iterative refinement, is the key driver of physical accuracy. SMRF nearly triples the physical-assertion pass rate of the best proprietary baseline (70.6% vs.\ 23.8%) and retains its advantage under cross-engine transfer.

Automated code vulnerability detection is critical for software security, yet existing approaches face a fundamental trade-off between detection accuracy and computational cost. We propose a heterogeneous multi-agent architecture inspired by game-theoretic principles, combining cloud-based LLM experts with a local lightweight verifier. Our "3+1" architecture deploys three cloud-based expert agents (DeepSeek-V3) that analyze code from complementary perspectives - code structure, security patterns, and debugging logic - in parallel, while a local verifier (Qwen3-8B) performs adversarial validation at zero marginal cost. We formalize this design through a two-layer game framework: (1) a cooperative game among experts capturing super-additive value from diverse perspectives, and (2) an adversarial verification game modeling quality assurance incentives. Experiments on 262 real samples from the NIST Juliet Test Suite across 14 CWE types, with balanced vulnerable and benign classes, demonstrate that our approach achieves a 77.2% F1 score with 62.9% precision and 100% recall at $0.002 per sample - outperforming both a single-expert LLM baseline (F1 71.4%) and Cppcheck static analysis (MCC 0). The adversarial verifier significantly improves precision (+10.3 percentage points, p < 1e-6, McNemar's test) by filtering false positives, while parallel execution achieves a 3.0x speedup. Our work demonstrates that game-theoretic design principles can guide effective heterogeneous multi-agent architectures for cost-sensitive software engineering tasks.

Large Language Models (LLMs) show promise for generating Register-Transfer Level (RTL) code from natural language specifications, but single-shot generation achieves only 60-65% functional correctness on standard benchmarks. Multi-agent approaches such as MAGE reach 95.9% on VerilogEval yet remain untested on harder industrial benchmarks such as NVIDIA's CVDP, lack synthesis awareness, and incur high API costs. We present ChipCraftBrain, a framework combining symbolic-neural reasoning with adaptive multi-agent orchestration for automated RTL generation. Four innovations drive the system: (1) adaptive orchestration over six specialized agents via a PPO policy over a 168-dim state (an alternative world-model MPC planner is also evaluated); (2) a hybrid symbolic-neural architecture that solves K-map and truth-table problems algorithmically while specialized agents handle waveform timing and general RTL; (3) knowledge-augmented generation from a 321-pattern base plus 971 open-source reference implementations with focus-aware retrieval; and (4) hierarchical specification decomposition into dependency-ordered sub-modules with interface synchronization. On VerilogEval-Human, ChipCraftBrain achieves 97.2% mean pass@1 (range 96.15-98.72% across 7 runs, best 154/156), on par with ChipAgents (97.4%, self-reported) and ahead of MAGE (95.9%). On a 302-problem non-agentic subset of CVDP spanning five task categories, we reach 94.7% mean pass@1 (286/302, averaged over 3 runs), a 36-60 percentage-point lift per category over the published single-shot baseline; we additionally lead three of four categories shared with NVIDIA's ACE-RTL despite using roughly 30x fewer per-problem attempts. A RISC-V SoC case study demonstrates hierarchical decomposition generating 8/8 lint-passing modules (689 LOC) validated on FPGA, where monolithic generation fails entirely.

Automated code generation remains a persistent challenge in software engineering, as conventional multi-agent frameworks are often constrained by static planning, isolated execution, high computational overhead, and limited adaptability to complex tasks. This paper introduces CollabCoder, a novel Plan-Code Co-Evolution framework that improves code generation through dynamic multi-agent collaboration. The core idea is to design a collaborative decision-making process between the plan module and the code module to decide which module should be executed for the debugging process. Extensive experiments on widely used benchmarks demonstrate that CollabCoder consistently improves code quality and robustness across tasks. Importantly, CollabCoder achieves performance comparable to or exceeding current state-of-the-art methods while reducing computational overhead, with efficiency gains becoming more pronounced as benchmark difficulty increases. On the more challenging LiveCodeBench and xCodeEval benchmarks, our approach improves performance by 11-20% over strong baselines while reducing the number of API calls by an average of 4-10 per execution.

Large language models generate plausible code but cannot verify correctness. Existing multi-agent systems simulate execution or leave verification optional. We introduce execution-grounded verification as a first-class principle: every code change must survive sandboxed execution before propagation. We instantiate this principle in AGENTFORGE, a multi-agent framework where Planner, Coder, Tester, Debugger, and Critic agents coordinate through shared memory and a mandatory Docker sandbox. We formalize software engineering with LLMs as an iterative decision process over repository states, where execution feedback provides a stronger supervision signal than next-token likelihood. AGENTFORGE achieves 40.0% resolution on SWE-BENCH Lite, outperforming single-agent baselines by 26--28 points. Ablations confirm that execution feedback and role decomposition each independently drive performance. The framework is open-source at https://github.com/raja21068/AutoCodeAI.

LLM-based coding agents are increasingly used to generate code, tests, and documentation. Still, their outputs can be plausible yet misaligned with developer intent and provide limited evidence for review in evolving projects. This limits our understanding of how to structure LLM pair-programming workflows so that artifacts remain reliable, auditable, and maintainable over time. To address this gap, this doctoral research proposes a systematic study of multi-agent LLM pair programming that externalizes intent and uses development tools for iterative validation. The plan includes three studies: translating informal problem statements into standards aligned requirements and formal specifications; refining tests and implementations using automated feedback, such as solver-backed counterexamples; and supporting maintenance tasks, including refactoring, API migrations, and documentation updates, while preserving validated behavior. The expected outcome is a clearer understanding of when multi-agent workflows increase trust, along with practical guidance for building reliable programming assistants for real-world development.

Current evaluations of autonomous coding agents assume an unrealistic, infinite-resource environment. However, real-world software engineering is a resource-bound competition. As we scale toward large agent swarms, ignoring compute and time costs risks catastrophic budget exhaustion. To shift the focus from isolated accuracy to cost-aware problem-solving, we introduce USACOArena, an interactive ACM-ICPC-style arena driven by a strict "credit" economy. Every generated token, local test, and elapsed second depletes a fixed budget, forcing agents to make strategic trade-offs. Our comprehensive profiling reveals that frontier single agents and swarms currently fail to optimally balance accuracy with these constraints, exhibiting divergent, path-dependent behaviors. Ultimately, USACOArena provides an essential dynamic training ground for developing highly efficient, resource-aware agent architectures.

AI coding tools are widely adopted, but most teams plateau at prompt-and-review without a framework for systematic progression. This paper presents the AI Codebase Maturity Model (ACMM), a 6-level framework describing how codebases evolve from basic AI-assisted coding to fully autonomous systems. Inspired by CMMI, each level is defined by its feedback loop topology - the specific mechanisms that must exist before the next level becomes possible. I validate the model through a 100-day experience report maintaining KubeStellar Console, a CNCF Kubernetes dashboard built from scratch with Claude Code (Opus) and GitHub Copilot, and through the initial production deployment of Hive - an open-source multi-agent orchestration system that realizes Level 6: full autonomy. The system currently operates with 74 CI/CD workflows, 32 nightly test suites, 91% code coverage, and achieves bug-to-fix times under 30 minutes - 24 hours a day. The central finding: the intelligence of an AI-driven development system resides not in the AI model itself, but in the infrastructure of instructions, tests, metrics, and feedback loops that surround it. You cannot skip levels, and at each level, the thing that unlocks the next one is another feedback mechanism. Testing - the volume of test cases, the coverage thresholds, and the reliability of test execution - proved to be the single most important investment in the entire journey. v2 extends the model from 5 to 6 levels, adding Level 6 (Fully Autonomous) with Hive as reference implementation and Beads for cross-agent memory continuity, plus throughput acceleration data showing 5x PR throughput and 37x issue throughput from Level 2 to Level 6.

Human cognitive development is shaped not only by individual effort but by structured social interaction, where role-based exchanges such as those between a tutor and a learner, enable solutions that neither could achieve alone. Inspired by these developmental principles, we ask the question whether a tutor-student multi-agent system can create a synergistic effect by pushing Large Language Model (LLM) beyond what it can do within existing frameworks. To test the idea, we adopt autonomous coding problem domain where two agents instantiated from the same LLM assigned asymmetric roles: a student agent generates and iteratively refines solutions, while a tutor agent provides structured evaluative feedback without access to ground-truth answers. In our proposed framework (PETITE), we aim to extract better problem-solving performance from one model by structuring its interaction through complementary roles, rather than relying on stronger supervisory models or heterogeneous ensembles. Our model is evaluated on the APPS coding benchmark against state-of-the-art approaches of Self-Consistency, Self-Refine, Multi-Agent Debate, and Multi-Agent Review. The results show that our model achieves similar or higher accuracy while consuming significantly fewer tokens. These results suggest that developmentally grounded role-differentiated interaction structures provide a principled and resource-efficient paradigm for enhancing LLM problem-solving through structured peer-like interactions. Index Terms- Peer Tutoring, Scaffolding, Large Language Models, Multi-Agent Systems, Code Generation

Most repository-level code translation and validation techniques have been evaluated on a single source-target programming language (PL) pair, owing to the complex engineering effort required to adapt new PL pairs. Programming agents can enable PL-agnosticism in repository-level code translation and validation: they can synthesize code across many PLs and autonomously use existing tools specific to each PL's analysis. However, state-of-the-art has yet to offer a fully autonomous agentic approach for repository-level code translation and validation of large-scale programs. This paper proposes ReCodeAgent, an autonomous multi-agent approach for language-agnostic repository-level code translation and validation. Users only need to provide the project in the source PL and specify the target PL for ReCodeAgent to automatically translate and validate the entire repository. ReCodeAgent is the first technique to achieve high translation success rates across many PLs. We compare the effectiveness of ReCodeAgent with four alternative neuro-symbolic and agentic approaches to translate 118 real-world projects, with 1,975 LoC and 43 translation units for each project, on average. The projects cover 6 PLs and 4 PL pairs. Our results demonstrate that ReCodeAgent consistently outperforms prior techniques on translation correctness, improving test pass rate by 60.8% on ground-truth tests, with an average cost of $15.3. We also perform process-centric analysis of ReCodeAgent trajectories to confirm its procedural efficiency. Finally, we investigate how the design choices (a multi-agent vs. single-agent architecture) influence ReCodeAgent performance: on average, the test pass rate drops by 40.4%, and trajectories become 28% longer and persistently inefficient.

The rapid development of AI-based products and their underlying models has led to constant innovation in deep learning frameworks. Google has been pioneering machine learning usage across dozens of products. Maintaining the multitude of model source codes in different ML frameworks and versions is a significant challenge. So far the maintenance and migration work was done largely manually by human experts. We describe an AI-based multi-agent system that we built to support automatic migration of TensorFlow-based deep learning models into JAX-based ones. We make three main contributions: First, we show how an AI planner that uses a mix of static analysis with AI instructions can create migration plans for very complex code components that are reliably followed by the combination of an orchestrator and coders, using AI-generated example-based playbooks. Second, we define quality metrics and AI-based judges that accelerate development when the code to evaluate has no tests and has to adhere to strict style and dependency requirements. Third, we demonstrate how the system accelerates code migrations in a large hyperscaler environment on commercial real-world use-cases. Our approach dramatically reduces the time (6.4x-8x speedup) for deep learning model migrations and creates a virtuous circle where effectively AI supports its own development workflow. We expect that the techniques and approaches described here can be generalized for other framework migrations and general code transformation tasks.

Can an expensive AI model effectively direct a cheap one to solve software engineering tasks? We study this question by introducing ManagerWorker, a two-agent pipeline where an expensive "manager" model (text-only, no code execution) analyzes issues, dispatches exploration tasks, and reviews implementations, while a cheap "worker" model (with full repo access) executes code changes. We evaluate on 200 instances from SWE-bench Lite across five configurations that vary the manager-worker relationship, pipeline complexity, and model pairing. Our findings reveal both the promise and the limits of multi-agent direction: (1) a strong manager directing a weak worker (62%) matches a strong single agent (60%) at a fraction of the strong-model token usage, showing that expensive reasoning can substitute for expensive execution; (2) a weak manager directing a weak worker (42%) performs worse than the weak agent alone (44%), demonstrating that the directing relationship requires a genuine capability gap--structure without substance is pure overhead; (3) the manager's value lies in directing, not merely reviewing--a minimal review-only loop adds just 2pp over the baseline, while structured exploration and planning add 11pp, showing that active direction is what makes the capability gap productive; and (4) these behaviors trace to a single root cause: current models are trained as monolithic agents, and splitting them into director/worker roles fights their training distribution. The pipeline succeeds by designing around this mismatch--keeping each model close to its trained mode (text generation for the manager, tool use for the worker) and externalizing organizational structure to code. This diagnosis points to concrete training gaps: delegation, scoped execution, and mode switching are skills absent from current training data.

We present an empirical study of how far general-purpose coding agents -- without hardware-specific training -- can optimize hardware designs from high-level algorithmic specifications. We introduce an agent factory, a two-stage pipeline that constructs and coordinates multiple autonomous optimization agents. In Stage1, the pipeline decomposes a design into sub-kernels, independently optimizes each using pragma and code-level transformations, and formulates an Integer Linear Program (ILP) to assemble globally promising configurations under an area constraint. In Stage2, it launches $N$ expert agents over the top ILP solutions, each exploring cross-function optimizations such as pragma recombination, loop fusion, and memory restructuring that are not captured by sub-kernel decomposition. We evaluate the approach on 12 kernels from HLS-Eval and Rodinia-HLS using Claude Code (Opus~4.5/4.6) with AMD Vitis HLS. Scaling from 1 to 10 agents yields a mean $8.27\times$ speedup over baseline, with larger gains on harder benchmarks: streamcluster exceeds $20\times$ and kmeans reaches approximately $10\times$. Across benchmarks, agents consistently rediscover known hardware optimization patterns without domain-specific training, and the best designs often do not originate from top-ranked ILP candidates, indicating that global optimization exposes improvements missed by sub-kernel search. These results establish agent scaling as a practical and effective axis for HLS optimization.

When multiple LLM-based code agents independently implement parts of the same class, they must agree on shared internal representations, even when the specification leaves those choices implicit. We study this coordination problem across 51 class-generation tasks, progressively stripping specification detail from full docstrings (L0) to bare signatures (L3), and introducing opposing structural biases (lists vs. dictionaries) to stress-test integration. Three findings emerge. First, a persistent specification gap: two-agent integration accuracy drops from 58% to 25% as detail is removed, while a single-agent baseline degrades more gracefully (89% to 56%), leaving a 25--39 pp coordination gap that is consistent across two Claude models (Sonnet, Haiku) and three independent runs. Second, an AST-based conflict detector achieves 97% precision at the weakest specification level without additional LLM calls, yet a factorial recovery experiment shows that restoring the full specification alone recovers the single-agent ceiling (89%), while providing conflict reports adds no measurable benefit. Third, decomposing the gap into coordination cost (+16 pp) and information asymmetry (+11 pp) suggests that the two effects are independent and approximately additive. The gap is not merely a consequence of hidden information, but reflects the difficulty of producing compatible code without shared decisions. These results support a specification-first view of multi-agent code generation: richer specifications are both the primary coordination mechanism and the sufficient recovery instrument.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have made significant progress in handling complex programming tasks. However, current methods rely on manual model selection and fixed workflows, which limit their ability to adapt to changing task complexities. To address this, we propose SEMAG, a Self-Evolutionary Multi-Agent code Generation framework that mimics human coding practices. It decomposes programming tasks into stages, including planning, coding, debugging, and discussion, while adapting workflows to task difficulty. Its self-evolutionary agents can access the latest models in real time and automatically upgrade the backbone model. SEMAG sets new state-of-the-art Pass@1 accuracy across benchmarks. Using identical backbone models, SEMAG outperforms prior methods by 3.3% on CodeContests. When augmented with self-evolutionary model selection that automatically identifies optimal backbones, SEMAG reaches 52.6%, showcasing both framework effectiveness and adaptability to evolving LLM capabilities.

Recent advances in Large Language Model (LLM)-based agents have shown remarkable progress in code generation. However, current agent methods mainly rely on text-output-based feedback (e.g. command-line outputs) for multi-round debugging and struggle in graphical user interface (GUI) that involve visual information. This is mainly due to two limitations: 1) GUI programs are event-driven, yet existing methods cannot simulate user interactions to trigger GUI element logic 2) GUI programs possess visual attributes, making it difficult for text-based approaches to assess whether the rendered interface meets user needs. To systematically address these challenges, we first introduce InteractGUI Bench, a novel benchmark comprising 984 commonly used real-world desktop GUI application tasks designed for fine-grained evaluation of both interaction logic and visual structure. Furthermore, we propose VF-Coder, a vision-feedback-based multi-agent system for debugging GUI code. By perceiving visual information and directly interacting with program interfaces, VF-Coder can identify potential logic and layout issues in a human-like manner. On InteractGUI Bench, our VF-Coder approach increases the success rate of Gemini-3-Flash from 21.68% to 28.29% and raises the visual score from 0.4284 to 0.5584, indicating the effectiveness of visual feedback in GUI debugging.

Large Language Models (LLMs) demonstrate potentials for automating scientific code generation but face challenges in reliability, error propagation in multi-agent workflows, and evaluation in domains with ill-defined success metrics. We present a Bayesian adversarial multi-agent framework specifically designed for AI for Science (AI4S) tasks in the form of a Low-code Platform (LCP). Three LLM-based agents are coordinated under the Bayesian framework: a Task Manager that structures user inputs into actionable plans and adaptive test cases, a Code Generator that produces candidate solutions, and an Evaluator providing comprehensive feedback. The framework employs an adversarial loop where the Task Manager iteratively refines test cases to challenge the Code Generator, while prompt distributions are dynamically updated using Bayesian principles by integrating code quality metrics: functional correctness, structural alignment, and static analysis. This co-optimization of tests and code reduces dependence on LLM reliability and addresses evaluation uncertainty inherent to scientific tasks. LCP also streamlines human-AI collaboration by translating non-expert prompts into domain-specific requirements, bypassing the need for manual prompt engineering by practitioners without coding backgrounds. Benchmark evaluations demonstrate LCP's effectiveness in generating robust code while minimizing error propagation. The proposed platform is also tested on an Earth Science cross-disciplinary task and demonstrates strong reliability, outperforming competing models.

Modern machine learning (ML) workloads increasingly rely on GPUs, yet achieving high end-to-end performance remains challenging due to dependencies on both GPU kernel efficiency and host-side settings. Although LLM-based methods show promise on automated GPU kernel generation, prior works mainly focus on single-kernel optimization and do not extend to end-to-end programs, hindering practical deployment. To address the challenge, in this work, we propose StitchCUDA, a multi-agent framework for end-to-end GPU program generation, with three specialized agents: a Planner to orchestrate whole system design, a Coder dedicated to implementing it step-by-step, and a Verifier for correctness check and performance profiling using Nsys/NCU. To fundamentally improve the Coder's ability in end-to-end GPU programming, StitchCUDA integrates rubric-based agentic reinforcement learning over two atomic skills, task-to-code generation and feedback-driven code optimization, with combined rubric reward and rule-based reward from real executions. Therefore, the Coder learns how to implement advanced CUDA programming techniques (e.g., custom kernel fusion, cublas epilogue), and we also effectively prevent Coder's reward hacking (e.g., just copy PyTorch code or hardcoding output) during benchmarking. Experiments on KernelBench show that StitchCUDA achieves nearly 100% success rate on end-to-end GPU programming tasks, with 1.72x better speedup over the multi-agent baseline and 2.73x than the RL model baselines. Code of the STITCHCUDA framework is avalaible at https://github.com/UMN-APEX-Lab/StitchCUDA.

Large language models (LLMs) exhibit strong performance on self-contained programming tasks. However, they still struggle with repository-level software engineering (SWE), which demands (1) deep codebase navigation with effective context management for accurate localization, and (2) systematic approaches for iterative, test-driven code modification to resolve issues. To address these challenges, we propose SWE-Adept, an LLM-based two-agent framework where a localization agent identifies issue-relevant code locations and a resolution agent implements the corresponding fixes. For issue localization, we introduce agent-directed depth-first search that selectively traverses code dependencies. This minimizes issue-irrelevant content in the agent's context window and improves localization accuracy. For issue resolution, we employ adaptive planning and structured problem solving. We equip the agent with specialized tools for progress tracking and Git-based version control. These tools interface with a shared working memory that stores code-state checkpoints indexed by execution steps, facilitating precise checkpoint retrieval. This design enables reliable agent-driven version-control operations for systematic issue resolution, including branching to explore alternative solutions and reverting failed edits. Experiments on SWE-Bench Lite and SWE-Bench Pro demonstrate that SWE-Adept consistently outperforms prior approaches in both issue localization and resolution, improving the end-to-end resolve rate by up to 4.3%.

While significant progress has been made in automating various aspects of software development through coding agents, there is still significant room for improvement in their bug fixing capabilities. Debugging and investigation of runtime behavior remains largely a manual, developer-driven process. Popular coding agents typically rely on either static analysis of the code or iterative test-fix cycles, which is akin to trial and error debugging. We posit that there is a wealth of rich runtime information that developers routinely access while debugging code, which agents are currently deprived of due to design limitations. Despite how prevalent debuggers are in modern IDEs and command-line tools, they have surprisingly not made their way into coding agents. In this work, we introduce Debug2Fix, a novel framework that incorporates interactive debugging as a core component of a software engineering agent via a subagent architecture. We incorporate debuggers for Java and Python into our agent framework and evaluate against GitBug-Java and SWE-Bench-Live and achieve >20% improvement in performance compared to the baseline for certain models. Furthermore, using our framework, we're able to make weaker models like GPT-5 and Claude Haiku 4.5 match or exceed the performances of stronger models like Claude Sonnet 4.5, showing that better tool design is often just as important as switching to a more expensive model. Finally, we conduct systematic ablations demonstrating the importance of both the subagent architecture and debugger integration.

Large language model(LLM)-driven multi-agent systems(MAS) coordinate specialized agents through predefined interaction topologies and have shown promise for complex tasks such as competition-level code generation. Recent studies demonstrate that carefully designed multi-agent workflows and communication graphs can significantly improve code generation performance by leveraging collaborative reasoning. However, existing methods neither adapt topology density to task difficulty nor iteratively refine the topology within an instance using execution feedback, which leads to redundant communication and performance bottlenecks. To address these issues, we propose AgentConductor: a reinforcement learning-optimized MAS with an LLM-based orchestrator agent as its core, which enables end-to-end feedback-driven dynamic generation of interaction topologies. For each query, AgentConductor infers agent roles and task difficulty, then constructs a task-adapted, density-aware layered directed acyclic graph (DAG) topology, underpinned by two key innovations. First, we design a novel topological density function that captures communication-aware mathematical characterizations of multi-agent interactions. Second, we adopt difficulty interval partitioning to avoid excessive pruning for precise topological density upper bound measurement per difficulty level and finer-grained control. Empirically, across three competition-level and two foundational code datasets, AgentConductor achieves state-of-the-art accuracy, outperforming the strongest baseline by up to 14.6% in pass@1 accuracy, 13% in density reduction, and 68% in token cost reduction.

Multi-agent frameworks (MAFs) promise to simplify LLM-driven software development, yet no principled metric captures how well AI coding assistants can generate correct, framework-specific code. We introduce AI-assistability ($\mathcal{AI}$), a composite metric that quantifies a framework's amenability to AI-assisted development by combining structural alignment ($\barσ$) with functional correctness (pass@1). To evaluate this metric in a controlled setting, we design DDL2PropBank, a novel benchmark task that maps relational database schemas to PropBank semantic rolesets, and implement identical agent logic across ten frameworks using the Agent-as-a-Tool pattern. Our results challenge the intuition that declarative framework design guarantees AI-assistability: Agno, with a single canonical pattern and convention-aligned API, achieves the highest $\mathcal{AI}$ score (0.55), while DSPy -- the most declarative framework by design -- scores lowest (0.07), as its novel abstractions are insufficiently represented in AI training data. We find that convention alignment, not declarative design alone, is the primary driver of AI-assistability ($r = 0.576$ between $\barσ$ and pass@1). All artifacts -- DDL2PropBank, PropBank MCP server, and all implementations -- are available at https://github.com/ahmeshaf/ddl2propbank

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated abilities to perform complex tasks in multiple domains, including mathematical and scientific reasoning. In this work, we construct a novel agent framework for solving representative problems in scientific computing. The proposed agent incorporates a "rewriting-resolution-review-revision" logical chain via three reasoning LLMs (the Consultant, Reviewer, and Programmer) in a collaborative and interactive manner. The Consultant module enables knowledge transfer to link problems to professional domain insights, thereby rewriting problem descriptions through text augmentation. The Programmer module generates and executes well-structured code to solve problems. The Reviewer module enables self-debugging and self-refinement through interactive feedback with code runtime outputs. Through the end-to-end review mechanism, the Programmer's executable code undergoes iterative revision. We comprehensively evaluate the framework on typical partial differential equations (PDEs), engineering-oriented flow past a cylinder, ill-conditioned linear systems, and data-driven physical analysis problems. Compared with a single-model approach, this collaborative framework significantly improves the bug-free code generation rate and reduces non-physical solutions, establishing a reliable framework for autonomous code generation from natural language descriptions. The review mechanism improved the average execution success (bug-free code and non-NaN solutions) rate of DeepSeek R1 from 59% to 82%, while ChatGPT 4.1-mini improved from 66% to 87% and Gemini-2.5 improved from 60% to 84%. Automatic code generation and review provide a promising workflow for scientific computing; analysis of solver-development trajectories further reveals recurring implementation difficulties in boundary treatment, array indexing, and the preservation of numerical constraints.