Daily Papers

Large language models used for code editing can be trained and deployed in at least two output regimes: direct generation, where the model emits the entire modified file in one shot, and iterative diff-based generation ("steps"), where the model emits a sequence of localized search/replace edits applied one at a time until it signals completion or a step budget is exhausted. The diff-based regime is attractive because it mirrors how developers edit code and should require far fewer generated tokens per turn. We train two code models - a 100M-parameter model trained from scratch (Rainbow-Pony-100M) and a fine-tuned Qwen2.5-Coder-0.5B - in both regimes on a shared Flutter/Dart dataset, and evaluate all four resulting models on a held-out set of approx 1,790 tasks per model. Direct generation substantially outperforms diff-based generation on every metric we measure - compilation/static-analysis pass rate, bits-per-byte, character-level similarity to the reference, and blinded LLM-judge ratings of goal fulfillment, correctness, and code quality - and the gap persists after controlling for task difficulty via a matched-ID comparison and when restricting to code that compiles on both sides. We then identify a single, architecture-independent mechanism behind the conditions where diff-based generation does win: it is competitive on short, spatially localized edits, and its category-level wins concentrate in exactly the two task categories - refactoring and error-handling/edge-case fixes - with the lowest mean edit-step count in our dataset. We term this task locality and discuss its implications for when an edit-based training regime is and is not the right choice for a code-editing model.

Static analysis is a cornerstone for software vulnerability detection, yet it often struggles with the classic precision-scalability trade-off. In practice, such tools often produce high false positive rates, particularly in large codebases like the Linux kernel. This imprecision can arise from simplified vulnerability modeling and over-approximation of path and data constraints. While large language models (LLMs) show promise in code understanding, their naive application to program analysis yields unreliable results due to inherent reasoning limitations. We introduce BugLens, a post-refinement framework that significantly improves static analysis precision. BugLens guides an LLM to follow traditional analysis steps by assessing buggy code patterns for security impact and validating the constraints associated with static warnings. Evaluated on real-world Linux kernel bugs, BugLens raises precision from 0.10 (raw) and 0.50 (semi-automated refinement) to 0.72, substantially reducing false positives and revealing four previously unreported vulnerabilities. Our results suggest that a structured LLM-based workflow can meaningfully enhance the effectiveness of static analysis tools.

This study presents a quantitative evaluation of the code quality and security of five prominent Large Language Models (LLMs): Claude Sonnet 4, Claude 3.7 Sonnet, GPT-4o, Llama 3.2 90B, and OpenCoder 8B. While prior research has assessed the functional performance of LLM-generated code, this research tested LLM output from 4,442 Java coding assignments through comprehensive static analysis using SonarQube. The findings suggest that although LLMs can generate functional code, they also introduce a range of software defects, including bugs, security vulnerabilities, and code smells. These defects do not appear to be isolated; rather, they may represent shared weaknesses stemming from systemic limitations within current LLM code generation methods. In particular, critically severe issues, such as hard-coded passwords and path traversal vulnerabilities, were observed across multiple models. These results indicate that LLM-generated code requires verification in order to be considered production-ready. This study found no direct correlation between a model's functional performance (measured by Pass@1 rate of unit tests) and the overall quality and security of its generated code, measured by the number of SonarQube issues in benchmark solutions that passed the functional tests. This suggests that functional benchmark performance score is not a good indicator of overall code quality and security. The goal of this study is not to rank LLM performance but to highlight that all evaluated models appear to share certain weaknesses. Consequently, these findings support the view that static analysis can be a valuable instrument for detecting latent defects and an important safeguard for organizations that deploy AI in software development.

Large language models (LLMs) have made remarkable progress in code generation, but competitive programming remains a challenge. Recent training-based methods have improved code generation by using reinforcement learning (RL) with execution feedback. The more recent framework CURE further incorporates test generation into the training process, jointly training a Coder and a Tester within a single model. At inference time, the Coder generates many candidate programs, and the Tester generates tests from the problem description. The candidate who passes the most of the generated tests is selected as the final answer. However, CURE has two critical limitations. First, the Tester never reads any candidate code, so its tests often fail to expose implementation-specific bugs. Second, the Coder generates every candidate from scratch and never learns to fix a buggy program based on a failed test. To address these limitations, we propose FixAudit, which approaches competitive code generation from a new perspective: starting from a single initial candidate, it iteratively improves the candidate through a targeted test-and-repair debugging cycle. The framework trains one shared model with two specialized roles through four stages: the Fixer, which repairs the current candidate based on a failing test, and the Auditor, which reads the candidate code to generate new tests that expose its remaining bugs. We evaluate FixAudit on three benchmarks: APPS, CodeContests, and xCodeEval. Applied to a 7B model, the framework surpasses the average performance of the larger 32B baseline within the same model family under the zero-shot setting. Compared to strong baselines built on the same 7B base model, FixAudit improves average Pass@1 by 35.1% to 36.8% and average AvgPassRatio by 7.1% to 24.5%.

As software projects progress, quality of code assumes paramount importance as it affects reliability, maintainability and security of software. For this reason, static analysis tools are used in developer workflows to flag code quality issues. However, developers need to spend extra efforts to revise their code to improve code quality based on the tool findings. In this work, we investigate the use of (instruction-following) large language models (LLMs) to assist developers in revising code to resolve code quality issues. We present a tool, CORE (short for COde REvisions), architected using a pair of LLMs organized as a duo comprised of a proposer and a ranker. Providers of static analysis tools recommend ways to mitigate the tool warnings and developers follow them to revise their code. The proposer LLM of CORE takes the same set of recommendations and applies them to generate candidate code revisions. The candidates which pass the static quality checks are retained. However, the LLM may introduce subtle, unintended functionality changes which may go un-detected by the static analysis. The ranker LLM evaluates the changes made by the proposer using a rubric that closely follows the acceptance criteria that a developer would enforce. CORE uses the scores assigned by the ranker LLM to rank the candidate revisions before presenting them to the developer. CORE could revise 59.2% Python files (across 52 quality checks) so that they pass scrutiny by both a tool and a human reviewer. The ranker LLM is able to reduce false positives by 25.8% in these cases. CORE produced revisions that passed the static analysis tool in 76.8% Java files (across 10 quality checks) comparable to 78.3% of a specialized program repair tool, with significantly much less engineering efforts.

Autonomous language-model agents increasingly rely on installable skills and tools to complete user tasks. Static skill auditing can expose capability surface before deployment, but it cannot determine whether a particular invocation is unsafe under the current user request and runtime context. We therefore study skill invocation auditing as a continuous-risk estimation problem: given a user request, candidate skill, and runtime context, predict a score that supports ranking and triage before a hard intervention is applied. We introduce STARS, which combines a static capability prior, a request-conditioned invocation risk model, and a calibrated risk-fusion policy. To evaluate this setting, we construct SIA-Bench, a benchmark of 3,000 invocation records with group-safe splits, lineage metadata, runtime context, canonical action labels, and derived continuous-risk targets. On a held-out split of indirect prompt injection attacks, calibrated fusion reaches 0.439 high-risk AUPRC, improving over 0.405 for the contextual scorer and 0.380 for the strongest static baseline, while the contextual scorer remains better calibrated with 0.289 expected calibration error. On the locked in-distribution test split, gains are smaller and static priors remain useful. The resulting claim is therefore narrower: request-conditioned auditing is most valuable as an invocation-time risk-scoring and triage layer rather than as a replacement for static screening. Code is available at https://github.com/123zgj123/STARS.

Scientific agents increasingly analyze data, execute code, and produce research artifacts, yet most benchmarks emphasize final answers, isolated programs, or a single domain. We introduce FrontierChallenge, a cross-domain benchmark comprising 300 end-to-end scientific workflows. In this paper, we release and evaluate 97 of these tasks, spanning quantum chemistry, molecular dynamics, materials characterization, analytical chemistry, life science, and electrochemistry/environment. Each task provides fixed inputs and specifies a bundle of required scientific deliverables. We evaluate twelve frontier models with three agent scaffolds. Pass Rate measures the fraction of tasks satisfying the full-completion criterion, while Avg. Score captures partial progress. Each of the best-performing configurations completed only 20 of the 97 released tasks, yielding a Pass Rate of 20.6%. Partial progress translated especially poorly into complete delivery in analytical chemistry and electrochemistry/environment: Avg. Scores reached 87.6 and 94.9, but the highest Pass Rates were only 4% and 0%. Among non-passing Claude Code trajectories, 75.5% still ended with language claiming completion. These findings show that neither high partial scores nor confident claims of completion reliably indicate that a scientific task has been fully delivered, highlighting the need to evaluate end-to-end workflow execution and the completeness of scientific deliverables together.

Programmable logic controllers (PLCs) run industrial plants, and large language models can already generate independent program organization units (POUs) for them. Whether such logic integrates into an existing PLC project and then runs correctly has been checked only in limited tests. We present SemaPLC, a project-grounded and verification-gated agent harness assembled from conventional tools but governed by a strict completion rule. Rather than stopping when the model judges its own output adequate, SemaPLC declares a task complete only when logged external checks confirm it. Those checks cover the specification, the compilation, and the behavior on a live runtime. On 117 independent-POU tasks matching existing benchmarks, it attains the highest strict verified pass rate on all seven models (72.6\% mean). On a project-context track of 65 tasks whose generated logic must compile and run inside a real project, it attains the highest mean on integrated compilation, static behavior, and dynamic behavior. Of the three layers, dynamic behavior is the most revealing. We measure it by deploying the generated and the reference logic to a live PLC runtime and comparing their executed traces. All methods fall within 10 static points of one another, whereas dynamic scores separate them sharply, from 22.4 to 31.4 for the baselines against 52.2 for SemaPLC. Overall, our verification-gated harness raises the mean at every layer and most sharply at runtime. Execution, not static scoring, is the faithful test of whether generated control logic actually works. SemaPLC is open-sourced at https://github.com/midea-ai/SemaPLC.

Agentic systems are evaluated on benchmarks where agents interact with environments to solve tasks. Most papers report a pass@1 score computed from a single run per task, assuming this gives a reliable performance estimate. We test this assumption by collecting 60,000 agentic trajectories on SWE-Bench-Verified, spanning three models and two scaffolds. We find substantial variance: single-run pass@1 estimates vary by 2.2 to 6.0 percentage points depending on which run is selected, with standard deviations exceeding 1.5 percentage points even at temperature 0. This variance has critical implications: reported improvements of 2--3 percentage points may reflect evaluation noise rather than genuine algorithmic progress. Through token-level analysis, we show that trajectories diverge early, often within the first few percent of tokens, and that these small differences cascade into different solution strategies. To enable reliable evaluation of agentic systems, we recommend three concrete practices: (1) estimate pass@1 from multiple independent runs per task, especially when measuring small improvements, (2) use statistical power analysis to determine the number of runs needed to detect expected effect sizes, and (3) consider metrics like pass@k (optimistic bound) and pass^k (pessimistic bound) with k>1 to better characterize the full performance envelope. While these practices increase evaluation cost, they are essential for distinguishing genuine scientific progress from statistical noise.

Implementing automated unit tests is an important but time-consuming activity in software development. To assist developers in this task, many techniques for automating unit test generation have been developed. However, despite this effort, usable tools exist for very few programming languages. Moreover, studies have found that automatically generated tests suffer poor readability and do not resemble developer-written tests. In this work, we present a rigorous investigation of how large language models (LLMs) can help bridge the gap. We describe a generic pipeline that incorporates static analysis to guide LLMs in generating compilable and high-coverage test cases. We illustrate how the pipeline can be applied to different programming languages, specifically Java and Python, and to complex software requiring environment mocking. We conducted an empirical study to assess the quality of the generated tests in terms of code coverage and test naturalness -- evaluating them on standard as well as enterprise Java applications and a large Python benchmark. Our results demonstrate that LLM-based test generation, when guided by static analysis, can be competitive with, and even outperform, state-of-the-art test-generation techniques in coverage achieved while also producing considerably more natural test cases that developers find easy to understand. We also present the results of a user study, conducted with 161 professional developers, that highlights the naturalness characteristics of the tests generated by our approach.

LLM-based coding agents have advanced rapidly on single-process SWE tasks, with frontier models now clustering in the high-70s on SWE-bench Verified. Distributed-system debugging, however, remains an under-explored regime: bugs span processes, nodes, and protocol interactions, with root causes rarely recoverable from source alone and brute-force exploration intractable across non-deterministic interleavings. This leaves two gaps in LLM and agent evaluation: no code-repair benchmark targets distributed-system bugs, and no controlled study isolates how much externally provided debugging context changes agent success on them. We introduce DDBench, a code-repair benchmark of 60 historical bugs mined from 13 open-source distributed systems, partitioned into three difficulty tiers. DDBench evaluates every case under two matched conditions: a symptom-only condition where the agent receives only the bug symptom and repository, and a context-augmented condition where it additionally receives a bounded debugging context (logs, traces, runtime state, and targeted code-investigation notes), isolating the effect of debugging context from model capability. The evaluation of ten LLMs on DDBench reveals several findings. First, distributed debugging exercises a reasoning dimension that single-process benchmarks do not surface: models' pass rates span 61 pp, and pairwise bootstrap separates 9 of 15 top-tier model pairs at p < 0.05 on DDBench's hardest case-set. Second, bounded debugging context lifts aggregate pass rate by +18.1 pp, and the lift is asymmetric: weaker models gain pass rate, while stronger models gain efficiency. Third, debugging context requires careful curation, as even faithful debugging context can sometimes mislead LLMs.

Code analysis is fundamental in Software Engineering, supporting debugging, optimization, and security assessment. Human developers approach it through syntax parsing, static semantics inference, and dynamic reasoning. Traditional tools are effective but limited by language specificity and weak cross-language generalization. Large language models (LLMs) are promising for code tasks, yet their capabilities for fundamental code analysis remain underexplored. We structure our study around three aspects aligned with human practices: syntax parsing, static semantics inference, and dynamic reasoning. We evaluate 21 state-of-the-art LLMs across nine tasks in four languages (C, Java, Python, Solidity), including AST generation, CFG construction, data dependency, taint analysis, and flaky test reasoning. We apply a three-layer evaluation protocol (automated metrics, expert adjudication, consistency validation) to 3,124 code samples, achieving high inter-rater reliability (Cohen's kappa = 0.844-0.936) and strong human-machine agreement (Gwet's AC1 = 0.500-0.727, F1 = 0.791-0.882). While the best LLMs excel in syntax parsing (AST 90%+, expression matching 84-100%) and show promise in static analysis, their dynamic reasoning remains limited (<70%) with high data-shift sensitivity (per-project F1 varying 0-1.0). This hierarchy holds across model families and scales, suggesting fundamental rather than transient limitations. These findings show how LLMs complement traditional analyzers: they offer cross-language generalization but non-deterministic outputs needing validation, while traditional tools give deterministic guarantees but need language-specific configuration. We contribute a validated evaluation framework with comparison against traditional analyzers (Tree-sitter, Soot, Joern) and task-specific applicability tiers. Benchmark: https://github.com/mathieu0905/llm_code_analysis.git

Establishing fair and robust benchmarks is essential for evaluating intelligent code generation by large language models (LLMs). Our survey of 35 existing benchmarks uncovers three major imbalances: 85.7% focus on a single programming language; 94.3% target only function-level or statement-level tasks; and over 80% include fewer than ten test cases on average. To address these gaps, we propose MultiOOP, a multi-language object-oriented programming benchmark covering six popular languages (Python, PHP, C++, C#, Java, JavaScript) with 267 tasks per language. We design a translator that extends an existing single-language OOP benchmark and the pass@o metric to a multilingual setting. Moreover, we propose an automated framework for augmenting test cases to ensure the reliability of the evaluation results. We evaluate 14 mainstream LLMs under zero-shot prompting and report three key findings: 1) Substantial performance degradation: pass@1 scores on MultiOOP drop by up to 65.6 percentage points compared to function-level tasks (e.g., HumanEval). 2) Cross-language variability: GPT-4o mini achieves pass@1 of 48.06% in Python but only 0.12%-15.26% in other languages, indicating limited multilingual generalization. 3) Conceptual gaps: pass@o scores are consistently 1.1-19.2 points lower than pass@k, demonstrating that LLMs often generate executable code without fully capturing core OOP concepts. Our benchmark, metric extensions, and evaluation scripts will be publicly released to foster a more balanced and comprehensive assessment of LLMs in object-oriented code generation. Our code and data will be released at https://github.com/alphadl/OOP-eval and https://huggingface.co/datasets/codeai-dteam/MultiOOP respectively.

Static analysis tools are widely used for vulnerability detection as they understand programs with complex behavior and millions of lines of code. Despite their popularity, static analysis tools are known to generate an excess of false positives. The recent ability of Machine Learning models to understand programming languages opens new possibilities when applied to static analysis. However, existing datasets to train models for vulnerability identification suffer from multiple limitations such as limited bug context, limited size, and synthetic and unrealistic source code. We propose D2A, a differential analysis based approach to label issues reported by static analysis tools. The D2A dataset is built by analyzing version pairs from multiple open source projects. From each project, we select bug fixing commits and we run static analysis on the versions before and after such commits. If some issues detected in a before-commit version disappear in the corresponding after-commit version, they are very likely to be real bugs that got fixed by the commit. We use D2A to generate a large labeled dataset to train models for vulnerability identification. We show that the dataset can be used to build a classifier to identify possible false alarms among the issues reported by static analysis, hence helping developers prioritize and investigate potential true positives first.

LLM-based coding agents extend their capabilities via third-party agent skills distributed through open marketplaces without mandatory security review. Unlike traditional packages, these skills are executed as operational directives with system-level privileges, so a single malicious skill can compromise the host. Prior work has not examined whether supply-chain attacks can directly hijack an agent's action space, such as file writes, shell commands, and network requests, despite existing safeguards. We introduce Document-Driven Implicit Payload Execution (DDIPE), which embeds malicious logic in code examples and configuration templates within skill documentation. Because agents reuse these examples during normal tasks, the payload executes without explicit prompts. Using an LLM-driven pipeline, we generate 1,070 adversarial skills from 81 seeds across 15 MITRE ATTACK categories. Across four frameworks and five models, DDIPE achieves 11.6% to 33.5% bypass rates, while explicit instruction attacks achieve 0% under strong defenses. Static analysis detects most cases, but 2.5% evade both detection and alignment. Responsible disclosure led to four confirmed vulnerabilities and two fixes.

Developers today use significant amounts of open source code, surfacing the need for ways to automatically audit and upgrade library dependencies, and giving rise to the subfield of Software Composition Analysis (SCA). SCA products are concerned with three tasks: discovering dependencies, checking the reachability of vulnerable code for false positive elimination, and automated remediation. The latter two tasks rely on call graphs of application and library code to check whether vulnerability-specific sinks identified in libraries are used by applications. However, statically-constructed call graphs introduce both false positives and false negatives on real-world projects. In this paper, we develop a novel, modular means of combining call graphs derived from both static and dynamic analysis to improve the performance of false positive elimination. Our experiments indicate significant performance improvements.

Large language model (LLM) agents now perform well on correctness-oriented repository-level tasks, including SWE-Bench issue resolution and feature implementation in real codebases. However, they still struggle with repository-level code optimization, which requires preserving behavior while improving runtime performance. Passing tests is not enough in this setting; a patch must preserve behavior, implement code optimization, and approach expert speedups. Current agents often miss bottlenecks hidden behind abstraction layers and native extensions, stop after shallow speedups, or insufficiently test the code patches that thus may silently break edge cases. We present PerfAgent, a profiler-guided, verifier-in-the-loop workflow that gives an off-the-shelf coding agent the feedback needed to find real hotspots, improve beyond the first passing patch, and use profiler evidence rather than timing alone to decide what to optimize next. On two challenging optimization benchmarks, GSO and SWE-fficiency-Lite, PerfAgent more than doubles the rate of expert-matching patches over OpenHands with GPT-5.1, improving from 19.6% to 39.2% on GSO and from 26% to 74% on SWE-fficiency-Lite. It also surpasses an oracle best-of-five baseline at substantially lower cost, showing that the gains come from better feedback rather than additional test-time sampling.

This study examined code issue detection and revision automation by integrating Large Language Models (LLMs) such as OpenAI's GPT-3.5 Turbo and GPT-4o into software development workflows. A static code analysis framework detects issues such as bugs, vulnerabilities, and code smells within a large-scale software project. Detailed information on each issue was extracted and organized to facilitate automated code revision using LLMs. An iterative prompt engineering process is applied to ensure that prompts are structured to produce accurate and organized outputs aligned with the project requirements. Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) is implemented to enhance the relevance and precision of the revisions, enabling LLM to access and integrate real-time external knowledge. The issue of LLM hallucinations - where the model generates plausible but incorrect outputs - is addressed by a custom-built "Code Comparison App," which identifies and corrects erroneous changes before applying them to the codebase. Subsequent scans using the static code analysis framework revealed a significant reduction in code issues, demonstrating the effectiveness of combining LLMs, static analysis, and RAG to improve code quality, streamline the software development process, and reduce time and resource expenditure.

Code agents can autonomously resolve GitHub issues, yet when they fail, current evaluation provides no visibility into where or why. Metrics such as Pass@1 collapse an entire execution into a single binary outcome, making it difficult to identify where and why the agent went wrong. To address this limitation, we introduce TRAJEVAL, a diagnostic framework that decomposes agent trajectories into three interpretable stages: search (file localization), read (function comprehension), and edit (modification targeting). For each stage, we compute precision and recall by comparing against reference patches. Analyzing 16,758 trajectories across three agent architectures and seven models, we find universal inefficiencies (all agents examine approximately 22x more functions than necessary) yet distinct failure modes: GPT-5 locates relevant code but targets edits incorrectly, while Qwen-32B fails at file discovery entirely. We validate that these diagnostics are predictive, achieving model-level Pass@1 prediction within 0.87-2.1% MAE, and actionable: real-time feedback based on trajectory signals improves two state-of-the-art models by 2.2-4.6 percentage points while reducing costs by 20-31%. These results demonstrate that our framework not only provides a more fine-grained analysis of agent behavior, but also translates diagnostic signals into tangible performance gains. More broadly, TRAJEVAL transforms agent evaluation beyond outcome-based benchmarking toward mechanism-driven diagnosis of agent success and failure.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are one of the most promising developments in the field of artificial intelligence, and the software engineering community has readily noticed their potential role in the software development life-cycle. Developers routinely ask LLMs to generate code snippets, increasing productivity but also potentially introducing ownership, privacy, correctness, and security issues. Previous work highlighted how code generated by mainstream commercial LLMs is often not safe, containing vulnerabilities, bugs, and code smells. In this paper, we present a framework that leverages testing and static analysis to assess the quality, and guide the self-improvement, of code generated by general-purpose, open-source LLMs. First, we ask LLMs to generate C code to solve a number of programming tasks. Then we employ ground-truth tests to assess the (in)correctness of the generated code, and a static analysis tool to detect potential safety vulnerabilities. Next, we assess the models ability to evaluate the generated code, by asking them to detect errors and vulnerabilities. Finally, we test the models ability to fix the generated code, providing the reports produced during the static analysis and incorrectness evaluation phases as feedback. Our results show that models often produce incorrect code, and that the generated code can include safety issues. Moreover, they perform very poorly at detecting either issue. On the positive side, we observe a substantial ability to fix flawed code when provided with information about failed tests or potential vulnerabilities, indicating a promising avenue for improving the safety of LLM-based code generation tools.

In the domain of code generation, self-debugging is crucial. It allows LLMs to refine their generated code based on execution feedback. This is particularly important because generating correct solutions in one attempt proves challenging for complex tasks. Prior works on self-debugging mostly focus on prompting methods by providing LLMs with few-shot examples, which work poorly on small open-sourced LLMs. In this work, we propose a training framework that significantly improves self-debugging capability of LLMs. Intuitively, we observe that a chain of explanations on the wrong code followed by code refinement helps LLMs better analyze the wrong code and do refinement. We thus propose an automated pipeline to collect a high-quality dataset for code explanation and refinement by generating a number of explanations and refinement trajectories and filtering via execution verification. We perform supervised fine-tuning (SFT) and further reinforcement learning (RL) on both success and failure trajectories with a novel reward design considering code explanation and refinement quality. SFT improves the pass@1 by up to 15.92% and pass@10 by 9.30% over four benchmarks. RL training brings additional up to 3.54% improvement on pass@1 and 2.55% improvement on pass@10. The trained LLMs show iterative refinement ability, and can keep refining code continuously. Lastly, our human evaluation shows that the LLMs trained with our framework generate more useful code explanations and help developers better understand bugs in source code.

Large language models for code generation increasingly rely on synthetic data, where both problem solutions and verification tests are generated by models. While this enables scalable data creation, it introduces a previously unexplored bottleneck: the verification ceiling, in which the quality and diversity of training data are fundamentally constrained by the capabilities of synthetic verifiers. In this work, we systematically study how verification design and strategies influence model performance. We investigate (i) what we verify by analyzing the impact of test complexity and quantity: richer test suites improve code generation capabilities (on average +3 pass@1), while quantity alone yields diminishing returns, (ii) how we verify by exploring relaxed pass thresholds: rigid 100% pass criteria can be overly restrictive. By allowing for relaxed thresholds or incorporating LLM-based soft verification, we can recover valuable training data, leading to a 2-4 point improvement in pass@1 performance. However, this benefit is contingent upon the strength and diversity of the test cases used, and (iii) why verification remains necessary through controlled comparisons of formally correct versus incorrect solutions and human evaluation: retaining diverse correct solutions per problem yields consistent generalization gains. Our results show that Verification as currently practiced is too rigid, filtering out valuable diversity. But it cannot be discarded, only recalibrated. By combining calibrated verification with diverse, challenging problem-solution pairs, we outline a path to break the verification ceiling and unlock stronger code generation models.

Much is promised in relation to AI-supported software development. However, there has been limited evaluation effort in the research domain aimed at validating the true utility of such techniques, especially when compared to human coding outputs. We bridge this gap, where a benchmark dataset comprising 72 distinct software engineering tasks is used to compare the effectiveness of large language models (LLMs) and human programmers in producing Python software code. GPT-4 is used as a representative LLM, where for the code generated by humans and this LLM, we evaluate code quality and adherence to Python coding standards, code security and vulnerabilities, code complexity and functional correctness. We use various static analysis benchmarks, including Pylint, Radon, Bandit and test cases. Among the notable outcomes, results show that human-generated code recorded higher ratings for adhering to coding standards than GPT-4. We observe security flaws in code generated by both humans and GPT-4, however, code generated by humans shows a greater variety of problems, but GPT-4 code included more severe outliers. Our results show that although GPT-4 is capable of producing coding solutions, it frequently produces more complex code that may need more reworking to ensure maintainability. On the contrary however, our outcomes show that a higher number of test cases passed for code generated by GPT-4 across a range of tasks than code that was generated by humans. That said, GPT-4 frequently struggles with complex problem-solving that involve in-depth domain knowledge. This study highlights the potential utility of LLMs for supporting software development, however, tasks requiring comprehensive, innovative or unconventional solutions, and careful debugging and error correction seem to be better developed by human programmers. We plot an agenda for the software engineering community.

In this study, we evaluated the capability of Large Language Models (LLMs), particularly OpenAI's GPT-4, in detecting software vulnerabilities, comparing their performance against traditional static code analyzers like Snyk and Fortify. Our analysis covered numerous repositories, including those from NASA and the Department of Defense. GPT-4 identified approximately four times the vulnerabilities than its counterparts. Furthermore, it provided viable fixes for each vulnerability, demonstrating a low rate of false positives. Our tests encompassed 129 code samples across eight programming languages, revealing the highest vulnerabilities in PHP and JavaScript. GPT-4's code corrections led to a 90% reduction in vulnerabilities, requiring only an 11% increase in code lines. A critical insight was LLMs' ability to self-audit, suggesting fixes for their identified vulnerabilities and underscoring their precision. Future research should explore system-level vulnerabilities and integrate multiple static code analyzers for a holistic perspective on LLMs' potential.

Bug reports serve as task specifications for repository-level automated program repair (APR) agents, but they often describe only the observed failure and omit repair-relevant information such as the failure-inducing behavior, behavioral requirement, and implementation scope. As a result, a repair agent may inspect irrelevant code, infer an incorrect requirement, or generate a patch that addresses the reported symptom without restoring the intended repository behavior. We present TrajSpec, a trajectory-guided approach for repository-supported bug report specification refinement. Given an original report and a pre-fix repository, TrajSpec runs a trajectory-collection agent and uses the resulting unverified trajectory as a source of trajectory-derived specification evidence. It organizes this evidence into a three-level representation consisting of a high-level interpretation of the issue, diagnostic findings supporting that interpretation, and concrete repository observations. TrajSpec then generates a draft refined report and applies repository-based review to remove unsupported claims, revise uncertain claims, and add repository-supported details. We evaluate TrajSpec on all 300 SWE-Bench Lite instances using Mini-SWE-Agent V2. TrajSpec's refined reports improve Pass@1 from 41.00% to 59.67% with GPT-5-mini and from 54.67% to 64.33% with MiniMax M2.5. On a stratified sample of 100 instances, TrajSpec's refined reports also improve Pass@1 from 41.00% to 71.00% with Agentless and from 47.00% to 72.00% with AutoCodeRover. Ablation results show that removing repository-based review or the hierarchical evidence representation reduces Pass@1 from 59.67% to 48.00% and 47.67%, respectively. Overall, TrajSpec provides actionable repository-supported context that consistently improves repair performance.

Advancing automated programming necessitates robust and comprehensive code generation benchmarks, yet current evaluation frameworks largely neglect object-oriented programming (OOP) in favor of functional programming (FP), e.g., HumanEval and MBPP. To address this, our study introduces a pioneering OOP-focused benchmark, featuring 431 Python programs that encompass essential OOP concepts and features like classes and encapsulation methods. We propose a novel evaluation metric, pass@o, tailored for OOP, enhancing traditional pass@k measures. Our evaluation of 23 leading large language models (LLMs), including both general and code-specialized models, reveals three key insights: 1) pass@o offers a more relevant and comprehensive assessment for OOP code generation; 2) Despite excelling in FP, code-specialized LLMs like WizardCoder lag in OOP compared to models like ChatGPT; 3) The poor performance of all advanced LLMs on our OOP benchmark highlights a critical need for improvements in this field. Our benchmark and scripts are publicly released at: https://github.com/alphadl/OOP-eval.

Static analysis tools are traditionally used to detect and flag programs that violate properties. We show that static analysis tools can also be used to perturb programs that satisfy a property to construct variants that violate the property. Using this insight we can construct paired data sets of unsafe-safe program pairs, and learn strategies to automatically repair property violations. We present a system called \sysname, which automatically repairs information flow vulnerabilities using this approach. Since information flow properties are non-local (both to check and repair), \sysname also introduces a novel domain specific language (DSL) and strategy learning algorithms for synthesizing non-local repairs. We use \sysname to synthesize strategies for repairing two types of information flow vulnerabilities, unvalidated dynamic calls and cross-site scripting, and show that \sysname successfully repairs several hundred vulnerabilities from open source {\sc JavaScript} repositories, outperforming neural baselines built using {\sc CodeT5} and {\sc Codex}. Our datasets can be downloaded from http://aka.ms/StaticFixer.

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive capabilities in code generation, achieving high scores on benchmarks such as HumanEval and MBPP. However, these benchmarks primarily assess functional correctness and neglect broader dimensions of code quality, including security, reliability, readability, and maintainability. In this work, we systematically evaluate the ability of LLMs to generate high-quality code across multiple dimensions using the PythonSecurityEval benchmark. We introduce an iterative static analysis-driven prompting algorithm that leverages Bandit and Pylint to identify and resolve code quality issues. Our experiments with GPT-4o show substantial improvements: security issues reduced from >40% to 13%, readability violations from >80% to 11%, and reliability warnings from >50% to 11% within ten iterations. These results demonstrate that LLMs, when guided by static analysis feedback, can significantly enhance code quality beyond functional correctness.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown remarkable aptitude in code generation but still struggle on challenging programming tasks. Self-repair -- in which the model debugs and fixes mistakes in its own code -- has recently become a popular way to boost performance in these settings. However, only very limited studies on how and when self-repair works effectively exist in the literature, and one might wonder to what extent a model is really capable of providing accurate feedback on why the code is wrong when that code was generated by the same model. In this paper, we analyze GPT-3.5 and GPT-4's ability to perform self-repair on APPS, a challenging dataset consisting of diverse coding challenges. To do so, we first establish a new evaluation strategy dubbed pass@t that measures the pass rate of the tasks against the total number of tokens sampled from the model, enabling a fair comparison to purely sampling-based approaches. With this evaluation strategy, we find that the effectiveness of self-repair is only seen in GPT-4. We also observe that self-repair is bottlenecked by the feedback stage; using GPT-4 to give feedback on the programs generated by GPT-3.5 and using expert human programmers to give feedback on the programs generated by GPT-4, we unlock significant performance gains.

Neural Theorem Proving (NTP) employs LLMs to automate formal proofs in proof assistants. While LLMs have achieved relatively remarkable success in informal reasoning tasks using natural languages, the transition to mechanized formal theorem proving presents persistent challenges. Mechanized proof languages often contain many syntactic constructs and diverse, specialized proof tactics, which facilitate expert use but have no direct counterpart in informal mathematical proofs. These prover-specific idioms represent an additional burden for LLM-based NTPs that might be otherwise successful in generating informal proofs. Seeking to bridge this gap between formal proof construction and informal reasoning, in order to better facilitate NTP, this work approaches these challenges from a language design perspective. We look at common reasoning patterns in informal proofs and in existing mechanized proofs, and design Minilang -- a minimalist proof language that captures these reasoning patterns. In contrast to proof languages (informal and formal) that often feature a large collection of operations with unclear semantic boundaries, Minilang is deliberately kept minimalist -- its core design comprises only 10 operations, each with clear semantic distinctions. We further develop a rule-based translator from Isabelle's language (Isar) to Minilang, translating ~340K existing proofs with an ~85% success rate. Using this translated corpus, we finetune two LLMs to compare machine learning performance on Minilang versus the original Isar. Experiments show Minilang benefits the two LLMs by improving the pass@1 success rate on the PISA benchmark by up to 20/29 percentage points in comparison to the Isar-based LLMs w/wo Sledgehammer. The pass@1 rate reaches 69.1%, exceeding the prior work Baldur's pass@64 (65.7%); the pass@8 rate reaches 79.2%, exceeding the SOTA on PISA (71.0%) achieved by Magnushammer.

The application of large language models (LLMs) in the field of coding is evolving rapidly: from code assistants, to autonomous coding agents, and then to generating complete projects through natural language. Early LLM code benchmarks primarily focused on code generation accuracy, but these benchmarks have gradually become saturated. Benchmark saturation weakens their guiding role for LLMs. For example, HumanEval Pass@1 has reached 99.4% and MBPP 94.2%. Among various attempts to address benchmark saturation, approaches based on software engineering have stood out, but the saturation of existing software engineering benchmarks is rapidly increasing. To address this, we propose a new benchmark, Web-Bench, which contains 50 projects, each consisting of 20 tasks with sequential dependencies. The tasks implement project features in sequence, simulating real-world human development workflows. When designing Web-Bench, we aim to cover the foundational elements of Web development: Web Standards and Web Frameworks. Given the scale and complexity of these projects, which were designed by engineers with 5 to 10 years of experience, each presents a significant challenge. On average, a single project takes 4 to 8 hours for a senior engineer to complete. On our given benchmark agent (Web-Agent), SOTA (Claude 3.7 Sonnet) achieves only 25.1% Pass@1, significantly lower (better) than SWE-Bench's Verified (65.4%) and Full (33.8%) scores. Finally, we discuss that in any development field, Standards and Frameworks represent foundational knowledge and efficiency tools, respectively, and LLMs require optimization tailored to them.

Symbolic execution detects vulnerabilities with precision, but applying it to large codebases requires harnesses that set up symbolic state, model dependencies, and specify assertions. Writing these harnesses has traditionally been a manual process requiring expert knowledge, which significantly limits the scalability of the technique. We present Static Analysis Informed and LLM-Orchestrated Symbolic Execution (SAILOR), which automates symbolic execution harness construction by combining static analysis with LLM-based synthesis. SAILOR operates in three phases: (1) static analysis identifies candidate vulnerable locations and generates vulnerability specifications; (2) an LLM uses vulnerability specifications and orchestrates harness synthesis by iteratively refining drivers, stubs, and assertions against compiler and symbolic execution feedback; symbolic execution then detects vulnerabilities using the generated harness, and (3) concrete replay validates the symbolic execution results against the unmodified project source. This design combines the scalability of static analysis, the code reasoning of LLMs, the path precision of symbolic execution, and the ground truth produced by concrete execution. We evaluate SAILOR on 10 open-source C/C++ projects totaling 6.8 M lines of code. SAILOR discovers 379 distinct, previously unknown memory-safety vulnerabilities (421 confirmed crashes). The strongest of five baselines we compare SAILOR to (agentic vulnerability detection using Claude Code with full codebase access and unlimited interaction), finds only 12 vulnerabilities. Each phase of SAILOR is critical: Without static analysis targeting confirmed vulnerabilities drop 12.2X; without iterative LLM synthesis zero vulnerabilities are confirmed; and without symbolic execution no approach can detect more than 12 vulnerabilities.

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%).

Frontier deep research agents (DRAs) plan a research task, synthesize across documents, and return a structured deliverable on demand. They are being deployed in enterprise workflows faster than they are being evaluated. Existing benchmarks measure factual recall, single-hop QA, or generic agentic skill, missing the multi-document, decision-grade work DRAs are deployed to produce. We introduce a benchmark targeting the structured analytical deliverables that fill a management consultant's typical week. We grade three frontier agents, namely Claude Opus 4.6 with web search, OpenAI o3-deep-research, and Google Gemini 3.1 Pro deep-research, on 42 SME-authored prompts. Each of the 126 responses is scored on two layers: deterministic ground-truth verifiers (mean 13.8 per task) and a five-criterion 0-3 SME rubric, composed into a Verifier-Rubric Score (VRS) on 0-100. Most prompts embed cognitive traps that penalize surface-pattern matching. Acceptance under our joint threshold (rubric mean >= 2.5 and verifier rate >= 80%) is uniformly low: Gemini 21.4%, o3 9.5%, Claude 9.5%. Mean VRS scores agree with published rubric-based benchmarks (our top 62.6 vs. APEX-v1 64.2, ProfBench 65.9, ResearchRubrics < 68%), validating the rubric construct. ACCEPT rates sit below APEX-Agents' MC-segment Pass@1 band (12.3-22.7%) on dedicated DR agents; our floor is three points lower despite the harness advantage, opened by stricter conjunctive grading and trap design. Each agent fails distinctively. Claude produces the deliverable most reliably (4.5x the others' rate on file-required tasks) but carries the highest fabrication signature. o3 has the cleanest reasoning average yet drops required sections and propagates arithmetic errors. Gemini is bimodal, with the highest acceptance rate alongside the most zero-scored rubric cells.

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.

Evaluation of software engineering (SWE) agents is dominated by a binary signal: whether the final patch passes the tests. This outcome-only view treats a principled solution and a chaotic trial-and-error process as equivalent. We show that this equivalence is empirically false. We evaluate 2,614 OpenHands trajectories from eight model backends on 60 SWE-bench Verified tasks. Of these, 47 have enough passing trajectories to construct task-level process references, yielding a 1,815-trajectory evaluation subset. Among passing trajectories in this subset, 10.7% exhibit behavior we call a Lucky Pass: regression cycles, blind retries, missing verification, or temporally disordered exploration, implementation, and verification. We introduce AgentLens, a framework for process-level assessment of SWE-agent trajectories, and release AgentLens-Bench, a dataset of 1,815 trajectories annotated with quality scores, waste signals, divergence points, and 47 task-level Prefix Tree Acceptor (PTA) references. AgentLens builds PTA references by merging multiple passing solutions for the same task, and uses a context-sensitive intent labeler to assign actions to Exploration, Implementation, Verification, or Orchestration based on trajectory history rather than tool identity alone. On AgentLens-Bench, the quality score separates passing trajectories into Lucky, Solid, and Ideal tiers and further decomposes Lucky Passes into five recurring mechanisms. Across the eight model backends, Lucky rates range from 0.5% to 23.2%, and some models move by as many as five rank positions when ranked by quality score instead of pass rate. We release the anonymized project repository, including the AgentLens-Bench dataset and AgentLens SDK, at https://github.com/microsoft/code-agent-state-trajectories/.

As autonomous code agents move toward end-to-end software development, evaluating their practical autonomy becomes critical. Current benchmarks hide friction by testing agents in pre-configured environments, and their static evaluation pipelines frequently fail when parsing fully autonomous trajectories. We address these limitations with SWE-Cycle, a benchmark of 489 rigorously filtered instances. SWE-Cycle evaluates agents across three isolated tasks, including environment reconstruction, code implementation, and verification test generation, as well as an end-to-end FullCycle task that integrates all three. The FullCycle task requires agents to work autonomously in a bare repository without human scaffolding. To reliably assess these complex execution paths, we developed SWE-Judge. By combining static code review with dynamic testing, this execution-capable evaluation agent accurately verifies functional correctness and eliminates the systematic measurement errors of traditional static parsers. We evaluate code agents powered by six state-of-the-art LLMs across these four tasks. The results reveal a sharp drop in solve rates when transitioning from isolated tasks to FullCycle execution, exposing critical bottlenecks in handling cross-phase dependencies and maintaining code quality. Together, SWE-Cycle and SWE-Judge provide a comprehensive framework for accurately measuring the end-to-end capabilities of autonomous software agents.

The integration of AI-powered coding agents into Continuous Integration/Continuous Delivery (CI/CD) pipelines has fundamentally altered how software verification is conducted. While these agents successfully automate the test generation, current evaluation benchmarks (e.g., SWE-bench) largely focus on pass-rates rather than the intrinsic quality of the generated tests. This raises the possibility of "stealth technical debt", in which test suites pass execution but do not offer comprehensive coverage or semantic value. We address this methodological gap through a large-scale, empirical comparison of 204,673 test artifacts which comprises of 24,941 human-authored files and 179,732 agent-generated files; sourced from the AIDev dataset. Using the Abstract Syntax Tree (AST) parsing with Python's naive ast module, we implemented a "white-box" static analysis framework to evaluate three quality dimensions: Assertion Strength (RQ1), Edge-Case Coverage (RQ2), and Flakiness Potential (RQ3). Our results present a nuanced inversion of traditional assumptions. AI agents performed better than humans in Edge-Case Coverage, with almost twice the variety of boundary checks (Variety Score: 0.62 vs 0.32) and a higher frequency of null-safety testing (13.40% vs. 8.3%), even though human developers had a slight advantage in Assertion Strength (88.1% strong assertions vs. 85.37% for agents). But this thoroughness comes at a price: due mostly to their reliance on file I/O and non-deterministic logic, agent-generated tests exhibited a higher risk of flakiness (Candidate Rate: 0.41 vs. 0.30). These findings suggest that while AI agents excel at rigorous boundary testing, they lack the "environmental awareness" needed to write stable, hermetic tests.

Recently, large language models (LLMs) have been deployed to tackle various software engineering (SE) tasks like code generation, significantly advancing the automation of SE tasks. However, assessing the quality of these LLM-generated code and text remains challenging. The commonly used Pass@k metric necessitates extensive unit tests and configured environments, demands a high labor cost, and is not suitable for evaluating LLM-generated text. Conventional metrics like BLEU, which measure only lexical rather than semantic similarity, have also come under scrutiny. In response, a new trend has emerged to employ LLMs for automated evaluation, known as LLM-as-a-judge. These LLM-as-a-judge methods are claimed to better mimic human assessment than conventional metrics without relying on high-quality reference answers. Nevertheless, their exact human alignment in SE tasks remains unexplored. In this paper, we empirically explore LLM-as-a-judge methods for evaluating SE tasks, focusing on their alignment with human judgments. We select seven LLM-as-a-judge methods that utilize general-purpose LLMs, alongside two LLMs specifically fine-tuned for evaluation. After generating and manually scoring LLM responses on three recent SE datasets of code translation, code generation, and code summarization, we then prompt these methods to evaluate each response. Finally, we compare the scores generated by these methods with human evaluation. The results indicate that output-based methods reach the highest Pearson correlation of 81.32 and 68.51 with human scores in code translation and generation, achieving near-human evaluation, noticeably outperforming ChrF++, one of the best conventional metrics, at 34.23 and 64.92. Such output-based methods prompt LLMs to output judgments directly, and exhibit more balanced score distributions that resemble human score patterns. Finally, we provide...

Evaluation of large language models (LLMs) for code has primarily relied on static benchmarks, including HumanEval (Chen et al., 2021), which measure the ability of LLMs to generate complete code that passes unit tests. As LLMs are increasingly used as programmer assistants, we study whether gains on existing benchmarks translate to gains in programmer productivity when coding with LLMs, including time spent coding. In addition to static benchmarks, we investigate the utility of preference metrics that might be used as proxies to measure LLM helpfulness, such as code acceptance or copy rates. To do so, we introduce RealHumanEval, a web interface to measure the ability of LLMs to assist programmers, through either autocomplete or chat support. We conducted a user study (N=213) using RealHumanEval in which users interacted with six LLMs of varying base model performance. Despite static benchmarks not incorporating humans-in-the-loop, we find that improvements in benchmark performance lead to increased programmer productivity; however gaps in benchmark versus human performance are not proportional -- a trend that holds across both forms of LLM support. In contrast, we find that programmer preferences do not correlate with their actual performance, motivating the need for better, human-centric proxy signals. We also open-source RealHumanEval to enable human-centric evaluation of new models and the study data to facilitate efforts to improve code models.

As production code evolves, the test suite must co-evolve to remain effective. Existing benchmarks for test evolution operate at method-level granularity with pre-paired inputs, bypassing the task of locating affected tests from the full project and excluding the need for new tests entirely. We present TEBench, the first project-level benchmark for test evolution. Given a project repository and a code-changing commit, TEBench requires systems to autonomously identify tests requiring modification, determine where new tests are needed, and produce the corresponding test patch. We construct TEBench through a four-stage pipeline over Defects4J projects, curating 314 task instances from 10 projects with developer-written ground truth. Each instance is annotated with one or more of three evolution types: Test-Breaking (tests that fail), Test-Stale (tests that pass but no longer meaningfully validate updated behavior), and Test-Missing (new tests needed for introduced behavior). We evaluate seven configurations spanning three industrial agent frameworks (Claude Code, Codex CLI, OpenCode) and six base models, alongside a heuristic baseline. All seven configurations converge on an identification F1 of 45.7% to 49.4%, revealing a shared performance ceiling across both frameworks and base models. Test-Stale is the most challenging type, averaging F1 around 36%, since configurations rely on execution failure signals and lack proactive semantic reasoning. On the update task, configurations produce highly executable test modifications whose surface form diverges substantially from ground truth. Trajectory analysis reveals a reactive "execute-fail-fix" loop that succeeds for breaking tests but structurally cannot address stale or missing tests. TEBench is available at https://github.com/iSEngLab/TEBench with a leaderboard at https://tebench-leadership.vercel.app.

Agent benchmarks often evaluate only final answers even when agents run on stateful runtimes. We argue this under-specifies what is being evaluated: the proper unit is a declared model-plus-runtime configuration whose failures can occur in evidence acquisition, runtime routing, safety boundaries, or repeated execution. We present ClawProBench, a trace-aware benchmark for runtime-native agent evaluation instantiated on OpenClaw, a live agent runtime with workspace tools and native surfaces for browsing, memory, messaging, scheduling, skills, and subagents. ClawProBench defines two tracks: a 102-scenario full profile with live workspace and native-runtime routing tasks, and a frozen 68-scenario holdout with closed-world JSON output contracts for robust ranking. Trials are scored from execution traces via a safety-gated formula combining correctness, process quality, and efficiency, preserving failure evidence for audit. Our anonymous artifact includes benchmark definitions, scoring code, manifests and sanitized traces. We evaluate 68 configurations on the full profile and 37 on holdout. The top safety-gated average trace score is 0.7671. Native-runtime tasks underperform workspace-live tasks (0.5238 vs. 0.6415). On holdout, pass@k-any outperforms strict three-trial pass (0.6638 vs. 0.2890), while full-profile and holdout rankings show weak alignment (Spearman 0.1300). Rankings based purely on correctness differ substantially from process-aware, safety-gated and strict-pass views. Final-answer leaderboards may hide native-surface weaknesses, one-off successes and trace-local agent failure modes.

Agent Skills package procedural instructions and checks for use by general-purpose agents, but loading a skill does not guarantee that every requirement remains active throughout a long tool-using trajectory. We study this problem in a production-derived, white-box code-audit workflow. Holding the task and 24 artifact checks fixed, we vary the surrounding context and classify where failures first become visible: lost requirements, editing drift, failed checking, or non-agent evaluator/runtime failures. Codex with gpt-5.4-mini passes 8/10 runs in a 10,991-character clean context but only 3/10 in both a 299,140-character relevant context and an equal-length irrelevant context. This 50-percentage-point difference is large but remains trend-level under two-sided Fisher tests (p = 0.0698). Requirement coverage nevertheless stays above 92% in both long conditions, showing that a few omissions can invalidate an otherwise complete artifact. A second task passes all clean and long runs, so the evidence does not support a universal context-length threshold. A detailed external checklist passes 10/10 runs, compared with 5/10 for a generic self-check (p = 0.0325). Coding-agent scaffolds may help by selecting a smaller working set, but they do not eliminate failures. We do not introduce context rot or a new general monitoring method; we provide a bounded failure classification and empirical case study for white-box code auditing.

Code generation benchmarks such as HumanEval are widely adopted to evaluate LLMs' capabilities. However, after consolidating the latest 24 benchmarks, we noticed three significant imbalances. First, imbalanced programming language. 95.8% of benchmarks involve Python, while only 5 benchmarks involve Java. Second, imbalanced code granularity. Function-/statement-level benchmarks account for over 83.3% of benchmarks. Only a mere handful extends to class-/project-levels, and all are limited to Python. Third, lacking advanced features. Existing benchmarks primarily assess basic coding skills, while overlooking advanced Object-Oriented Programming (OOP) features (i.e., encapsulation, inheritance, and polymorphism). To fill these gaps, we propose JavaBench, a project-level Java benchmark that exercises OOP features. It comprises four Java projects with 389 methods in 106 Java classes. The test coverage is up to 92%, and JavaBench is attested by 282 undergraduate students, reaching a 90.93/100 average score (i.e., pass rate against the test suite), ensuring the quality of documentation, code skeleton, and tests. To better evaluate LLM's capability against JavaBench, we introduce a systematic evaluation design covering three context settings and five synthesis strategies at two granularities using three hierarchical metrics. Our extensive experiment yields several interesting findings. First, we noticed that regarding project-level Java programming, LLMs are far behind undergraduate students (no project can be correctly completed by any studied LLMs, and at most 41.17% Pass@5 in a more relaxed evaluation). Second, using method signature as prompt context may strike an ideal balance for project-level code generation. JavaBench is publicly available at https://github.com/java-bench/JavaBench.

Open-source libraries and tools are widely reused, but compatibility maintenance is expensive. Once maintainers leave, useful repositories can stop working as runtimes and dependencies evolve. We study whether LLM agents can adapt old repositories to modern environments, a task we call compatibility rescue. Unlike bug repair, compatibility rescue starts from a repository that worked in its original environment but fails after ecosystem drift. RepoRescue gives agents only the repository and its failing modern environment; the agent must diagnose the failure, locate affected code, and produce a source-code rescue that restores the historical test suite. We build RepoRescue from 193 Python and 122 Java repositories, each verified to pass historically and fail after modernization. We evaluate five deployed agent systems on Python and three on Java. Beyond full-patch pass rate, we rerun patches after removing test-file edits to measure source-only repair, add a runtime-enforced regime that blocks test edits, and validate practical use for repositories whose suites pass after rescue. We find that Claude Code systems sometimes edit failing tests even when prompted not to; with runtime blocking, Kimi still rescues 41.5% of repositories. Systems are complementary: their union reaches 62.7%, exceeding the best single system by 10.9 points. Difficulty concentrates in cross-file coordination: on 14 repositories requiring coordinated whole-codebase changes, GPT-5.2 through Codex passes all 14, while every Claude Code system passes at most two. Finally, a passing suite is only an initial signal: among 34 unmaintained Python candidates whose suites pass after rescue, 22 work in realistic scenarios and 12 pass bug-hunt with patches that address the compatibility failure. RepoRescue benchmarks compatibility rescue with source-only auditing, runtime enforcement, practical validation, and reasoning labels.

Large language models trained on code have shown great potential to increase productivity of software developers. Several execution-based benchmarks have been proposed to evaluate functional correctness of model-generated code on simple programming problems. Nevertheless, it is expensive to perform the same evaluation on complex real-world projects considering the execution cost. On the contrary, static analysis tools such as linters, which can detect errors without running the program, haven't been well explored for evaluating code generation models. In this work, we propose a static evaluation framework to quantify static errors in Python code completions, by leveraging Abstract Syntax Trees. Compared with execution-based evaluation, our method is not only more efficient, but also applicable to code in the wild. For experiments, we collect code context from open source repos to generate one million function bodies using public models. Our static analysis reveals that Undefined Name and Unused Variable are the most common errors among others made by language models. Through extensive studies, we also show the impact of sampling temperature, model size, and context on static errors in code completions.

Agent systems often decompose a task across multiple roles, but these roles are typically specified by prompts rather than enforced by access controls. Without enforcement, a team pass rate can mask whether agents actually coordinated or whether one role effectively did another role's work. We present TeamBench, a benchmark with 851 task templates and 931 seeded instances for evaluating agent coordination under operating system-enforced role separation. TeamBench separates specification access, workspace editing, and final certification across Planner, Executor, and Verifier roles, so that no role can read the full requirements, modify the workspace, and certify the final answer. Prompt-only and sandbox-enforced teams reach statistically indistinguishable pass rates, but prompt-only runs produce 3.6 times more cases where the verifier attempts to edit the executor's code. Verifiers approve 49% of submissions that fail the deterministic grader, and removing the verifier improves mean partial score in the ablation. Team value is also conditional. Teams benefit when single agents struggle, but hurt when single agents already perform well. A 40-session human study under the same role separation shows that our benchmark exposes interaction patterns that pass rate misses. Solo participants work through the task directly, human participants paired with agents often collapse into quick approval, and human teams spend more effort coordinating missing information across roles.

The tendency to find and exploit "shortcuts" to complete tasks poses significant risks for reliable assessment and deployment of large language models (LLMs). For example, an LLM agent with access to unit tests may delete failing tests rather than fix the underlying bug. Such behavior undermines both the validity of benchmark results and the reliability of real-world LLM coding assistant deployments. To quantify, study, and mitigate such behavior, we introduce ImpossibleBench, a benchmark framework that systematically measures LLM agents' propensity to exploit test cases. ImpossibleBench creates "impossible" variants of tasks from existing benchmarks like LiveCodeBench and SWE-bench by introducing direct conflicts between the natural-language specification and the unit tests. We measure an agent's "cheating rate" as its pass rate on these impossible tasks, where any pass necessarily implies a specification-violating shortcut. As a practical framework, ImpossibleBench is not just an evaluation but a versatile tool. We demonstrate its utility for: (1) studying model behaviors, revealing more fine-grained details of cheating behaviors from simple test modification to complex operator overloading; (2) context engineering, showing how prompt, test access and feedback loop affect cheating rates; and (3) developing monitoring tools, providing a testbed with verified deceptive solutions. We hope ImpossibleBench serves as a useful framework for building more robust and reliable LLM systems. Our implementation can be found at https://github.com/safety-research/impossiblebench.

Front-end development accumulates change after change at the repository level, weaving complex cross-file dependencies that current LLM coding agents tuned for single-shot tasks cannot reliably track across multiple iterations, leading to functional regressions and code that resists maintenance. We argue the missing piece is design knowledge: architectural principles, module responsibilities, and structural constraints that developers lean on to keep code readable, maintainable, and evolvable as a system scales. To operationalize this, we propose WebDesignIter, a framework built around a persistent knowledge graph (WebAppArchKG) that fuses repository structure with design knowledge and keeps both in sync across development cycles. WebDesignIter works in two stages: design-informed planning pulls historical context and architectural overviews from WebAppArchKG to produce an implementation plan with corresponding test scripts, and design-aware generation executes that plan through targeted diff-based patches, validated by sandbox execution and automatic syntax repair. On Web-Bench, WebDesignIter delivers an average Pass@2 gain of 9.55 percentage points across nine foundation models over existing baselines. More importantly, WebDesignIter outperforms every general-purpose coding agent Claude Code, OpenHands, SWE-Agent, Codex CLI on every model configuration, posting the highest Pass@1 and Pass@2 while consuming 2530 fewer input tokens. Ablation singles out design knowledge as the most impactful component: stripping it drops Pass@1 by 11.40 percentage points, a degradation far larger than removing code-graph retrieval, patch-based generation, or sandbox verification, confirming that design knowledge provides a fundamentally more efficient and reliable path to repository-level code generation.

Evaluating software engineering agents on realistic benchmarks is costly, since each task may require multi-step code exploration, modification, and test execution. Existing efficient evaluation methods select representative subsets to estimate full-benchmark performance, but are largely result-only: they fit historical pass/fail response matrices or static task semantics, discarding how agents solve problems. We propose PTA-IRT, a Privileged Trajectory-Aware Item Response Theory framework that fuses process and outcome signals. Historical execution trajectories supply process-level evidence beyond pass/fail, such as explored context, attempted edits, and solving paths, which PTA-IRT uses as privileged information for calibration subset selection and ability estimation. Under low calibration budgets, PTA-IRT consistently outperforms prior IRT baselines on score and ranking recovery across four SWE benchmarks. Code and data are publicly available at https://github.com/DeepSoftwareAnalytics/PTA-IRT.

The rise of reasoning models necessitates large-scale verifiable data, for which programming tasks serve as an ideal source. However, while competitive programming platforms provide abundant problems and solutions, high-quality test cases for verification remain scarce. Existing approaches attempt to synthesize test cases using Large Language Models (LLMs), but rely solely on the model's intrinsic generation capabilities without external feedback, frequently resulting in insufficiently diverse cases. To address this limitation, we propose a Feedback-Driven Iterative Framework for comprehensive test case construction. Specifically, our method leverages the LLM to generate initial test cases, executes them against known correct and incorrect solutions, and utilizes the failed results as feedback to guide the LLM in refining the test cases toward high fidelity and discriminability. We then apply this method to the CodeContests dataset to construct an optimized high-quality derivative, CodeContests-O. Evaluating against the entire pool of solutions (1.1 times 10^7 in total), our dataset achieves an average True Positive Rate (TPR) of 89.37% and True Negative Rate (TNR) of 90.89%, significantly outperforming the CodeContests and CodeContests+ by margins of 4.32% and 9.37%, respectively. Furthermore, fine-tuning the Qwen2.5-7B model on CodeContests-O results in a 9.52% improvement on LiveCodeBench (Pass@1). Experiments demonstrate the effectiveness of our framework and the quality of CodeContests-O. To support reproducibility and facilitate future research, we release the https://github.com/cai-jianfeng/CodeContests-O{code} and https://huggingface.co/datasets/caijanfeng/CodeContests-O{dataset}.

Nearly all jurisdictions in the United States require a professional license exam, commonly referred to as "the Bar Exam," as a precondition for law practice. To even sit for the exam, most jurisdictions require that an applicant completes at least seven years of post-secondary education, including three years at an accredited law school. In addition, most test-takers also undergo weeks to months of further, exam-specific preparation. Despite this significant investment of time and capital, approximately one in five test-takers still score under the rate required to pass the exam on their first try. In the face of a complex task that requires such depth of knowledge, what, then, should we expect of the state of the art in "AI?" In this research, we document our experimental evaluation of the performance of OpenAI's `text-davinci-003` model, often-referred to as GPT-3.5, on the multistate multiple choice (MBE) section of the exam. While we find no benefit in fine-tuning over GPT-3.5's zero-shot performance at the scale of our training data, we do find that hyperparameter optimization and prompt engineering positively impacted GPT-3.5's zero-shot performance. For best prompt and parameters, GPT-3.5 achieves a headline correct rate of 50.3% on a complete NCBE MBE practice exam, significantly in excess of the 25% baseline guessing rate, and performs at a passing rate for both Evidence and Torts. GPT-3.5's ranking of responses is also highly-correlated with correctness; its top two and top three choices are correct 71% and 88% of the time, respectively, indicating very strong non-entailment performance. While our ability to interpret these results is limited by nascent scientific understanding of LLMs and the proprietary nature of GPT, we believe that these results strongly suggest that an LLM will pass the MBE component of the Bar Exam in the near future.

Large Language Models (LLMs) often generate code with subtle but critical bugs, especially for complex tasks. Existing automated repair methods typically rely on superficial pass/fail signals, offering limited visibility into program behavior and hindering precise error localization. In addition, without a way to learn from prior failures, repair processes often fall into repetitive and inefficient cycles. To overcome these challenges, we present TraceCoder, a collaborative multi-agent framework that emulates the observe-analyze-repair process of human experts. The framework first instruments the code with diagnostic probes to capture fine-grained runtime traces, enabling deep insight into its internal execution. It then conducts causal analysis on these traces to accurately identify the root cause of the failure. This process is further enhanced by a novel Historical Lesson Learning Mechanism (HLLM), which distills insights from prior failed repair attempts to inform subsequent correction strategies and prevent recurrence of similar mistakes. To ensure stable convergence, a Rollback Mechanism enforces that each repair iteration constitutes a strict improvement toward the correct solution. Comprehensive experiments across multiple benchmarks show that TraceCoder achieves up to a 34.43\% relative improvement in Pass@1 accuracy over existing advanced baselines. Ablation studies verify the significance of each system component, with the iterative repair process alone contributing a 65.61\% relative gain in accuracy. Furthermore, TraceCoder significantly outperforms leading iterative methods in terms of both accuracy and cost-efficiency.

This paper reports a single, fully instrumented case study of a large-scale architectural refactoring by an AI coding agent under a specification-first protocol, with no human review of the generated code and no pre-existing oracle to validate the target behaviour. The task, dismantling a central invariant across a large interdependent codebase, was assessed by the author as effectively infeasible through incremental refactoring, the kind of change that conventionally calls for a rewrite instead. Under the protocol described here, the agent completed it successfully. The system is a 717,725-line production TypeScript application across 3,648 files. The task required dismantling a core lifetime invariant: the guarantee that a UI panel remains open for the duration of an AI request. The target behaviour was that a streaming generation survives the closing of its panel and can be reattached, on reopening, to the same live stream with no loss or duplication. The protocol: formal specification by the agent, 14 refinement cycles auditing that specification against the source code, atomic implementation, a compile/test feedback loop, then 17 verification cycles auditing the code against the frozen specification. Across 31 audit passes, 201 defects were corrected before any human executed the program. The convergence criterion was empirical: two consecutive verification passes returning zero findings. The change touched 189 files (31 new); with the extraction phase, the two commits total 288 files, 34,770 insertions, 16,422 deletions. Across the first and roughly thirty later sessions, the software behaved as specified, no bug observed. Elapsed: three days; cost: USD 2,430. The full specification and raw session logs, 1,500+ pages in French, are published as evidence, allowing inspection of the process and submission to a language model for consistency checking.

In recent years, the use of automated source code generation utilizing transformer-based generative models has expanded, and these models can generate functional code according to the requirements of the developers. However, recent research revealed that these automatically generated source codes can contain vulnerabilities and other quality issues. Despite researchers' and practitioners' attempts to enhance code generation models, retraining and fine-tuning large language models is time-consuming and resource-intensive. Thus, we describe FRANC, a lightweight framework for recommending more secure and high-quality source code derived from transformer-based code generation models. FRANC includes a static filter to make the generated code compilable with heuristics and a quality-aware ranker to sort the code snippets based on a quality score. Moreover, the framework uses prompt engineering to fix persistent quality issues. We evaluated the framework with five Python and Java code generation models and six prompt datasets, including a newly created one in this work (SOEval). The static filter improves 9% to 46% Java suggestions and 10% to 43% Python suggestions regarding compilability. The average improvement over the NDCG@10 score for the ranking system is 0.0763, and the repairing techniques repair the highest 80% of prompts. FRANC takes, on average, 1.98 seconds for Java; for Python, it takes 0.08 seconds.

Large Language Model (LLM) Agents are advancing quickly, with the increasing leveraging of LLM Agents to assist in development tasks such as code generation. While LLM Agents accelerate code generation, studies indicate they may introduce adverse effects on development. However, existing metrics solely measure pass rates, failing to reflect impacts on long-term maintainability and readability, and failing to capture human intuitive evaluations of PR. To increase the comprehensiveness of this problem, we investigate and evaluate the characteristics of LLM to know the pull requests' characteristics beyond the pass rate. We observe the code quality and maintainability within PRs based on code metrics to evaluate objective characteristics and developers' reactions to the pull requests from both humans and LLM's generation. Evaluation results indicate that LLM Agents frequently disregard code reuse opportunities, resulting in higher levels of redundancy compared to human developers. In contrast to the quality issues, our emotions analysis reveals that reviewers tend to express more neutral or positive emotions towards AI-generated contributions than human ones. This disconnect suggests that the surface-level plausibility of AI code masks redundancy, leading to the silent accumulation of technical debt in real-world development environments. Our research provides insights for improving human-AI collaboration.

We present the first systematic approach to static and dynamic taint analysis for Graph APIs focusing on broken access control. The approach comprises the following. We taint nodes in the Graph API if they represent data requiring specific privileges in order to be retrieved or manipulated, and identify API calls which are related to sources and sinks. Then, we statically analyze whether tainted information flow between API source and sink calls occurs. To this end, we model the API calls using graph transformation rules. We subsequently use critical pair analysis to automatically analyze potential dependencies between rules representing source calls and rules representing sink calls. We distinguish direct from indirect tainted information flow and argue under which conditions the CPA is able to detect not only direct, but also indirect tainted flow. The static taint analysis (i) identifies flows that need to be further reviewed, since tainted nodes may be created by an API call and used or manipulated by another API call later without having the necessary privileges, and (ii) can be used to systematically design dynamic security tests for broken access control. The dynamic taint analysis checks if potential broken access control risks detected during the static taint analysis really occur. We apply the approach to a part of the GitHub GraphQL API. The application illustrates that our analysis supports the detection of two types of broken access control systematically: the case where users of the API may not be able to access or manipulate information, although they should be able to do so; and the case where users (or attackers) of the API may be able to access/manipulate information that they should not.

With the growing popularity of Large Language Models (e.g. GitHub Copilot, ChatGPT, etc.) in software engineers' daily practices, it is important to ensure that the code generated by these tools is not only functionally correct but also free of vulnerabilities. Although LLMs can help developers to be more productive, prior empirical studies have shown that LLMs can generate insecure code. There are two contributing factors to the insecure code generation. First, existing datasets used to evaluate Large Language Models (LLMs) do not adequately represent genuine software engineering tasks sensitive to security. Instead, they are often based on competitive programming challenges or classroom-type coding tasks. In real-world applications, the code produced is integrated into larger codebases, introducing potential security risks. There's a clear absence of benchmarks that focus on evaluating the security of the generated code. Second, existing evaluation metrics primarily focus on the functional correctness of the generated code while ignoring security considerations. Metrics such as pass@k gauge the probability of obtaining the correct code in the top k suggestions. Other popular metrics like BLEU, CodeBLEU, ROUGE, and METEOR similarly emphasize functional accuracy, neglecting security implications. In light of these research gaps, in this paper, we described SALLM, a framework to benchmark LLMs' abilities to generate secure code systematically. This framework has three major components: a novel dataset of security-centric Python prompts, an evaluation environment to test the generated code, and novel metrics to evaluate the models' performance from the perspective of secure code generation.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown potential to enhance software development through automated code generation and refactoring, reducing development time and improving code quality. This study empirically evaluates StarCoder2, an LLM optimized for code generation, in refactoring code across 30 open-source Java projects. We compare StarCoder2's performance against human developers, focusing on (1) code quality improvements, (2) types and effectiveness of refactorings, and (3) enhancements through one-shot and chain-of-thought prompting. Our results indicate that StarCoder2 reduces code smells by 20.1% more than developers, excelling in systematic issues like Long Statement and Magic Number, while developers handle complex, context-dependent issues better. One-shot prompting increases the unit test pass rate by 6.15% and improves code smell reduction by 3.52%. Generating five refactorings per input further increases the pass rate by 28.8%, suggesting that combining one-shot prompting with multiple refactorings optimizes performance. These findings provide insights into StarCoder2's potential and best practices for integrating LLMs into software refactoring, supporting more efficient and effective code improvement in real-world applications.

LLM agents benefit from reusable skills, yet test-time tasks often require guidance more specific than a static skill library can provide. We propose SkillTTA, a Test-Time Adaptive Skill Synthesis method that retrieves a small set of training trajectories relevant to the current task and synthesizes them into a temporary, task-specific textual skill. The solver model is kept fixed, so adaptation happens entirely through generated context rather than parameter updates. We evaluate the method on SpreadsheetBench, ALFWorld, and BigCodeBench. Compared with static trajectory-to-skill synthesis using GPT-5.5, task-specific skills improve SpreadsheetBench Pass@1 from 0.397 to 0.505 and BigCodeBench Pass@1 from 0.517 to 0.651. On ALFWorld, the method matches a heavier memory-learning baseline within four points of success rate while producing the shortest successful trajectories among reported methods. Ablations on SpreadsheetBench further show that synthesized skills outperform raw trajectory prompting, that top-k retrieval should stay small, and that failed trajectories are especially useful because they expose recurring evaluator-facing mistakes.

Large language models (LLMs) have shown promise for automated unit test generation, but existing evaluations largely rely on standalone settings and a narrow set of programming languages, overestimating real-world readiness. We introduce XREPOTEST, a multilingual repository-level benchmark for unit test generation spanning five underexplored languages: Rust, Go, Julia, PHP, and Ruby. XREPOTEST evaluates tests under realistic repository constraints using a containerized execution framework and multiple context augmentation strategies, including file-level, LSP-based, and retrieval-based context. Beyond standard metrics such as test pass rate and coverage, we propose Invocation Rate (IR) to assess whether generated tests meaningfully exercise the intended functionality. Experiments with 14 state-of-the-art LLMs, including Claude 4.5, GPT-5.2, DeepSeek V4-Pro, and Qwen families, reveal a substantial gap between standalone and repository-level performance, as well as trade-offs between richer context and test reliability. Overall, XREPOTEST provides a challenging and informative benchmark to advance scalable and robust unit test generation in realistic software environments. The dataset and code are publicly available at: https://github.com/solis-team/XRepoTest

Skills are becoming the capability layer through which LLM agents turn plans into actions, but their use introduces security risks such as data leakage, unauthorized operations, and tool misuse. Existing vetting usually evaluates each skill in isolation, while real agent tasks often invoke multiple skills in a shared execution context. This creates Skill Composition Risk (SCR): a skill that appears benign alone can become harmful when its outputs, trust signals, authorization cues, or side effects influence later invocations along an activated path. We introduce SCR-Bench to evaluate this risk in controlled, sandboxed skill environments. Rather than relying only on textual intent or surface behavior, SCR-Bench records downstream state changes and path-level outcomes across composed skill executions. It contains three sub-benchmarks: SCR-CapFlow for capability-flow composition, SCR-TrustLift for trust-transfer composition, and SCR-AuthBlur for authorization-confusion composition. Across SCR-Bench, composed paths expose risks that are largely absent under isolated evaluation. In SCR-CapFlow, attack success rate reaches 33.6 percent under composition, compared with near-zero isolated baselines. In SCR-TrustLift, attack success rate exceeds 96.5 percent on four of five backends. In SCR-AuthBlur, the risky-approval rate increases by 71.8 percent relative to the L0 isolated baseline under the L1 context setting. These results show that agent skill security should be assessed at the level of activated paths rather than isolated artifacts. SCR and SCR-Bench provide a foundation for path-aware risk evaluation and defense in LLM agent skill ecosystems. Benchmark: https://github.com/saint-viperx/SCR_Bench.

Recent autonomous penetration testing papers report high benchmark scores while adding multi-component security harnesses around frontier LLMs. Because these systems often change both architecture and backbone model, it is difficult to tell how much performance comes from the harness rather than from the underlying model. This paper presents a controlled study on the 104-task XBOW benchmark using default coding CLI agents as plain-agent baselines. We first run Codex, OpenCode, and Pi with the same GPT-5 model, budget, target interface, and scoring rule. This phase identifies the strongest same-model baseline and tests whether security-specific prompt variants improve its observed score. We then compare the default Codex scaffold with published MAPTA and PentestGPT V2 results under the closest available model matches. Finally, we repeat the plain-agent experiment with GPT-5.2 and GPT-5.5 to measure model scaling inside the same scaffold. The results show a mixed but practical picture. Specialised harnesses can add measurable benchmark lift and may improve cost efficiency, but plain coding agents already solve a large share of the benchmark; repeated plain-agent runs can match or exceed some published architecture scores in union coverage, and newer models substantially improve the same scaffold. Future evaluations should report model-matched plain-agent baselines before attributing benchmark gains to architecture design alone.

While large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive capabilities in formal theorem proving, current benchmarks fail to adequately measure library-grounded abstraction -- the ability to reason with high-level interfaces and reusable structures central to modern mathematics and software engineering. We introduce LeanCat, a challenging benchmark comprising 100 fully formalized category-theory tasks in Lean. Unlike algebra or arithmetic, category theory serves as a rigorous stress test for structural, interface-level reasoning. Our evaluation reveals a severe abstraction gap: the best state-of-the-art model solves only 12.0% of tasks at pass@4, with performance collapsing from 55.0% on Easy tasks to 0.0% on High-difficulty tasks, highlighting a failure in compositional generalization. To overcome this, we evaluate LeanBridge, a retrieval-augmented agent that employs a retrieve-generate-verify loop. LeanBridge achieves a peak success rate of 24.0% -- doubling the performance of the best static baseline. These results empirically demonstrate that iterative refinement and dynamic library retrieval are not merely optimizations but strict necessities for neuro-symbolic reasoning in abstract domains. LeanCat offers a compact, reusable testbed for tracking progress toward reliable, research-level formalization.

LLM routing matters most in long-horizon applications such as coding agents, deep research systems, and computer-use agents, where a single user request triggers many model calls. Routing each call to the cheapest sufficient model can cut costs without sacrificing quality, yet existing router benchmarks evaluate routers only on one-shot prompts. They never expose the router-visible prefix at an intermediate agent step, never test whether a cheaper replacement preserves downstream task success, and often rely on online LLM judges at evaluation time. We introduce TwinRouterBench, a step-level routing benchmark with two tracks. The static track provides 970 router-visible prefixes from 520 instances across SWE-bench, BFCL, mtRAG, QMSum, and PinchBench, each paired with an execution-verified target tier estimated under a released downgrade-and-cascade protocol; scoring is deterministic arithmetic over tier labels, trajectory membership, and token costs, with no online evaluator-side LLM judge. The dynamic track supplies a harness that runs routers on the full 500-case SWE-bench Verified suite; in this paper we report a 100-case held-out evaluation disjoint from the static SWE supervision split. At each LLM call the router selects a concrete model from a locked pool, and success is measured by official task resolution and realized API spend. The two tracks support fast offline iteration followed by end-to-end validation under live agent execution. Code and data are available at https://github.com/CommonstackAI/TwinRouterBench.

Selecting LLM-generated code candidates using LLM-generated tests is challenging because the tests themselves may be incorrect. Existing methods either treat all tests equally or rely on ad-hoc heuristics to filter unreliable tests. Yet determining test correctness requires knowing which codes are correct, creating a circular dependency. Our key insight is that we need not determine test correctness at all: test votes should rank, not merely count. What matters is not how many codes pass a test, but whether the test can distinguish correct from incorrect code. We break the circular dependency via leave-one-out evaluation: hold out one test, rank codes by their aggregate scores on all remaining tests, and measure whether the held-out test's pass/fail pattern agrees with this ranking. We formalize this agreement as the leave-one-out AUC~(LOO-AUC) and prove that the expected LOO-AUC is proportional to each test's ability to separate correct code from incorrect code. Building on this, we propose ACES~(AUC ConsistEncy Scoring) with two complementary variants: ACES-C provides closed-form weights that provably approximate the oracle in expectation under a mild assumption on average test quality; ACES-O drops this assumption and iteratively optimizes a differentiable LOO-AUC objective. Both operate solely on the binary pass matrix with negligible overhead, and achieve state-of-the-art Pass@k on multiple code generation benchmarks.

Software testing is a crucial aspect of software development, and the creation of high-quality tests that adhere to best practices is essential for effective maintenance. Recently, Large Language Models (LLMs) have gained popularity for code generation, including the automated creation of test cases. However, these LLMs are often trained on vast amounts of publicly available code, which may include test cases that do not adhere to best practices and may even contain test smells (anti-patterns). To address this issue, we propose a novel technique called Reinforcement Learning from Static Quality Metrics (RLSQM). To begin, we analyze the anti-patterns generated by the LLM and show that LLMs can generate undesirable test smells. Thus, we train specific reward models for each static quality metric, then utilize Proximal Policy Optimization (PPO) to train models for optimizing a single quality metric at a time. Furthermore, we amalgamate these rewards into a unified reward model aimed at capturing different best practices and quality aspects of tests. By comparing RL-trained models with those trained using supervised learning, we provide insights into how reliably utilize RL to improve test generation quality and into the effects of various training strategies. Our experimental results demonstrate that the RL-optimized model consistently generated high-quality test cases compared to the base LLM, improving the model by up to 21%, and successfully generates nearly 100% syntactically correct code. RLSQM also outperformed GPT-4 on four out of seven metrics. This represents a significant step towards enhancing the overall efficiency and reliability of software testing through Reinforcement Learning and static quality metrics. Our data are available at this link: https://figshare.com/s/ded476c8d4c221222849.

Dataflow analysis is a fundamental code analysis technique that identifies dependencies between program values. Traditional approaches typically necessitate successful compilation and expert customization, hindering their applicability and usability for analyzing uncompilable programs with evolving analysis needs in real-world scenarios. This paper presents LLMDFA, an LLM-powered compilation-free and customizable dataflow analysis framework. To address hallucinations for reliable results, we decompose the problem into several subtasks and introduce a series of novel strategies. Specifically, we leverage LLMs to synthesize code that outsources delicate reasoning to external expert tools, such as using a parsing library to extract program values of interest and invoking an automated theorem prover to validate path feasibility. Additionally, we adopt a few-shot chain-of-thought prompting to summarize dataflow facts in individual functions, aligning the LLMs with the program semantics of small code snippets to mitigate hallucinations. We evaluate LLMDFA on synthetic programs to detect three representative types of bugs and on real-world Android applications for customized bug detection. On average, LLMDFA achieves 87.10% precision and 80.77% recall, surpassing existing techniques with F1 score improvements of up to 0.35. We have open-sourced LLMDFA at https://github.com/chengpeng-wang/LLMDFA.

Tests that cause spurious failures without any code changes, i.e., flaky tests, hamper regression testing, increase maintenance costs, may shadow real bugs, and decrease trust in tests. While the prevalence and importance of flakiness is well established, prior research focused on Java projects, thus raising the question of how the findings generalize. In order to provide a better understanding of the role of flakiness in software development beyond Java, we empirically study the prevalence, causes, and degree of flakiness within software written in Python, one of the currently most popular programming languages. For this, we sampled 22352 open source projects from the popular PyPI package index, and analyzed their 876186 test cases for flakiness. Our investigation suggests that flakiness is equally prevalent in Python as it is in Java. The reasons, however, are different: Order dependency is a much more dominant problem in Python, causing 59% of the 7571 flaky tests in our dataset. Another 28% were caused by test infrastructure problems, which represent a previously undocumented cause of flakiness. The remaining 13% can mostly be attributed to the use of network and randomness APIs by the projects, which is indicative of the type of software commonly written in Python. Our data also suggests that finding flaky tests requires more runs than are often done in the literature: A 95% confidence that a passing test case is not flaky on average would require 170 reruns.

Software is prone to security vulnerabilities. Program analysis tools to detect them have limited effectiveness in practice due to their reliance on human labeled specifications. Large language models (or LLMs) have shown impressive code generation capabilities but they cannot do complex reasoning over code to detect such vulnerabilities especially since this task requires whole-repository analysis. We propose IRIS, a neuro-symbolic approach that systematically combines LLMs with static analysis to perform whole-repository reasoning for security vulnerability detection. Specifically, IRIS leverages LLMs to infer taint specifications and perform contextual analysis, alleviating needs for human specifications and inspection. For evaluation, we curate a new dataset, CWE-Bench-Java, comprising 120 manually validated security vulnerabilities in real-world Java projects. A state-of-the-art static analysis tool CodeQL detects only 27 of these vulnerabilities whereas IRIS with GPT-4 detects 55 (+28) and improves upon CodeQL's average false discovery rate by 5% points. Furthermore, IRIS identifies 4 previously unknown vulnerabilities which cannot be found by existing tools. IRIS is available publicly at https://github.com/iris-sast/iris.

Static Application Security Testing (SAST) tools are essential for identifying software vulnerabilities, but they often produce a high volume of false positives (FPs), imposing a substantial manual triage burden on developers. Recent advances in Large Language Model (LLM) agents offer a promising direction by enabling iterative reasoning, tool use, and environment interaction to refine SAST alerts. However, the comparative effectiveness of different LLM-based agent architectures for FP filtering remains poorly understood. In this paper, we present a comparative study of three state-of-the-art LLM-based agent frameworks, i.e., Aider, OpenHands, and SWE-agent, for vulnerability FP filtering. We evaluate these frameworks using the vulnerabilities from the OWASP Benchmark and real-world open-source Java projects. The experimental results show that LLM-based agents can remove the majority of SAST noise, reducing an initial FP detection rate of over 92% on the OWASP Benchmark to as low as 6.3% in the best configuration. On real-world dataset, the best configuration of LLM-based agents can achieve an FP identification rate of up to 93.3% involving CodeQL alerts. However, the benefits of agents are strongly backbone- and CWE-dependent: agentic frameworks significantly outperform vanilla prompting for stronger models such as Claude Sonnet 4 and GPT-5, but yield limited or inconsistent gains for weaker backbones. Moreover, aggressive FP reduction can come at the cost of suppressing true vulnerabilities, highlighting important trade-offs. Finally, we observe large disparities in computational cost across agent frameworks. Overall, our study demonstrates that LLM-based agents are a powerful but non-uniform solution for SAST FP filtering, and that their practical deployment requires careful consideration of agent design, backbone model choice, vulnerability category, and operational cost.

Large Language Model (LLM) code agents increasingly resolve repository-level issues by iteratively editing code, invoking tools, and validating candidate patches. In these workflows, agents often write tests on the fly, a paradigm adopted by many high-ranking agents on the SWE-bench leaderboard. However, we observe that GPT-5.2, which writes almost no new tests, can even achieve performance comparable to top-ranking agents. This raises the critical question: whether such tests meaningfully improve issue resolution or merely mimic human testing practices while consuming a substantial interaction budget. To reveal the impact of agent-written tests, we present an empirical study that analyzes agent trajectories across six state-of-the-art LLMs on SWE-bench Verified. Our results show that while test writing is commonly adopted, but resolved and unresolved tasks within the same model exhibit similar test-writing frequencies Furthermore, these tests typically serve as observational feedback channels, where agents prefer value-revealing print statements significantly more than formal assertion-based checks. Based on these insights, we perform a controlled experiment by revising the prompts of four agents to either increase or reduce test writing. The results suggest that changes in the volume of agent-written tests do not significantly change final outcomes. Taken together, our study reveals that current test-writing practices may provide marginal utility in autonomous software engineering tasks.

Static program slicing, which extracts the executable portions of a program that affect the values at a specific location, supports many software analysis tasks such as debugging and security auditing. However, traditional slicing tools rely on computationally expensive reachability analysis over dependency graphs, which struggle to scale to large programs and often fail to handle code with incomplete syntax. Recently emerged learning-based methods, while more robust to such cases, still fall short of achieving comparable performance to traditional methods on well-formed code. In this work, we propose SliceMate, a novel static program slicing solution powered by Large Language Model (LLM) agents. It bypasses the need for explicit dependency graph construction and achieving superior slicing accuracy. Concretely, SliceMate integrates three specialized agents: (1) a synthesis agent that produces candidate slices by incrementally expanding the scan scope across functions and files guided by LLM-inferred dependencies; (2) a verification agent that performs conciseness and completeness checks of the candidate slices, detecting missing or irrelevant statements; and (3) a refinement agent that repairs the slices with minimal edits in accordance with the verification results. These agents are orchestrated by a control module that ensures timely convergence and outputs high-quality slices without manual intervention. For rigorous evaluation, we construct a new and high-quality benchmark, SliceBench, comprising 2,200 manually annotated Java and Python programs, with program lengths ranging from 5 to 8,577 lines, significantly larger than those in existing slicing benchmarks. Experimental results show that SliceMate greatly outperforms both traditional and learning-based slicing tools.

Expert-written natural language skills can improve tool-using agents, yet agent-authored skills perform 8-11 points worse than using no skill. This gap suggests that following procedural guidance and improving it from execution evidence are distinct capabilities. Inference time loops can repair skills but do not improve the model that writes the next one. We study how to organize execution experience from intermediate skills into training states for an optimizer. We introduce WER (Write, Execute, and Refine), a multi-phase framework that trains a Skill Optimizer outside a frozen executor. The optimizer proposes skills, a frozen agent executes each repeatedly, and a programmatic verifier scores the outcomes. The scores provide relative credit and select mixed-outcome records. Matched successful and failed trajectories from these records form the next phase's refinement states, so the optimizer learns from the consequences of its earlier outputs. On BFCL v4 multi-turn and tau2-bench, WER improves average Pass@1 over the no-skill baseline by 7.80 and 3.85 points, respectively. Under an identical refinement workflow, it outperforms the same backbone without optimizer training by 9.35 and 10.29 points. The trained 4B optimizer reaches 76.63 percent on BFCL v4, outperforming all evaluated off-the-shelf general-purpose models used as skill optimizers on average.

Bug reports often lack sufficient detail for developers to reproduce and fix the underlying defects. Bug Reproduction Tests (BRTs), tests that fail when the bug is present and pass when it has been resolved, are crucial for debugging, but they are rarely included in bug reports, both in open-source and in industrial settings. Thus, automatically generating BRTs from bug reports has the potential to accelerate the debugging process and lower time to repair. This paper investigates automated BRT generation within an industry setting, specifically at Google, focusing on the challenges of a large-scale, proprietary codebase and considering real-world industry bugs extracted from Google's internal issue tracker. We adapt and evaluate a state-of-the-art BRT generation technique, LIBRO, and present our agent-based approach, BRT Agent, which makes use of a fine-tuned Large Language Model (LLM) for code editing. Our BRT Agent significantly outperforms LIBRO, achieving a 28% plausible BRT generation rate, compared to 10% by LIBRO, on 80 human-reported bugs from Google's internal issue tracker. We further investigate the practical value of generated BRTs by integrating them with an Automated Program Repair (APR) system at Google. Our results show that providing BRTs to the APR system results in 30% more bugs with plausible fixes. Additionally, we introduce Ensemble Pass Rate (EPR), a metric which leverages the generated BRTs to select the most promising fixes from all fixes generated by APR system. Our evaluation on EPR for Top-K and threshold-based fix selections demonstrates promising results and trade-offs. For example, EPR correctly selects a plausible fix from a pool of 20 candidates in 70% of cases, based on its top-1 ranking.

Most existing pre-trained language models for source code focus on learning the static code text, typically augmented with static code structures (abstract syntax tree, dependency graphs, etc.). However, program semantics will not be fully exposed before the real execution. Without an understanding of the program execution, statically pre-trained models fail to comprehensively capture the dynamic code properties, such as the branch coverage and the runtime variable values, and they are consequently less effective at code understanding tasks, such as retrieving semantic clones and detecting software vulnerabilities. To close the gap between the static nature of language models and the dynamic characteristics of programs, we introduce TRACED, an execution-aware pre-training strategy for source code. Specifically, we pre-train code language models with a combination of source code, executable inputs, and corresponding execution traces. Our goal is to teach code models the complicated execution logic during the pre-training, enabling the model to statically estimate the dynamic code properties without repeatedly executing code during task-specific fine-tuning. To illustrate the effectiveness of our proposed approach, we fine-tune and evaluate TRACED on three downstream tasks: static execution estimation, clone retrieval, and vulnerability detection. The empirical results show that TRACED relatively improves the statically pre-trained code models by 12.4% for complete execution path prediction and by 25.2% for runtime variable value predictions. TRACED also significantly outperforms statically pre-trained models in clone retrieval and vulnerability detection across four public benchmarks.

Agent skills, structured procedural knowledge packages injected at inference time, are increasingly used to augment LLM agents on software engineering tasks. However, their real utility in end-to-end development settings remains unclear. We present SWE-Skills-Bench, the first requirement-driven benchmark that isolates the marginal utility of agent skills in real-world software engineering (SWE). It pairs 49 public SWE skills with authentic GitHub repositories pinned at fixed commits and requirement documents with explicit acceptance criteria, yielding approximately 565 task instances across six SWE subdomains. We introduce a deterministic verification framework that maps each task's acceptance criteria to execution-based tests, enabling controlled paired evaluation with and without the skill. Our results show that skill injection benefits are far more limited than rapid adoption suggests: 39 of 49 skills yield zero pass-rate improvement, and the average gain is only +1.2%. Token overhead varies from modest savings to a 451% increase while pass rates remain unchanged. Only seven specialized skills produce meaningful gains (up to +30%), while three degrade performance (up to -10%) due to version-mismatched guidance conflicting with project context. These findings suggest that agent skills are a narrow intervention whose utility depends strongly on domain fit, abstraction level, and contextual compatibility. SWE-Skills-Bench provides a testbed for evaluating the design, selection, and deployment of skills in software engineering agents. SWE-Skills-Bench is available at https://github.com/GeniusHTX/SWE-Skills-Bench.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated exceptional coding capability. However, as another critical component of programming proficiency, the debugging capability of LLMs remains relatively unexplored. Previous evaluations of LLMs' debugging ability are significantly limited by the risk of data leakage, the scale of the dataset, and the variety of tested bugs. To overcome these deficiencies, we introduce `DebugBench', an LLM debugging benchmark consisting of 4,253 instances. It covers four major bug categories and 18 minor types in C++, Java, and Python. To construct DebugBench, we collect code snippets from the LeetCode community, implant bugs into source data with GPT-4, and assure rigorous quality checks. We evaluate two commercial and three open-source models in a zero-shot scenario. We find that (1) while closed-source models like GPT-4 exhibit inferior debugging performance compared to humans, open-source models such as Code Llama fail to attain any pass rate scores; (2) the complexity of debugging notably fluctuates depending on the bug category; (3) incorporating runtime feedback has a clear impact on debugging performance which is not always helpful. As an extension, we also compare LLM debugging and code generation, revealing a strong correlation between them for closed-source models. These findings will benefit the development of LLMs in debugging.

Language models of code (LMs) work well when the surrounding code in the vicinity of generation provides sufficient context. This is not true when it becomes necessary to use types or functionality defined in another module or library, especially those not seen during training. LMs suffer from limited awareness of such global context and end up hallucinating, e.g., using types defined in other files incorrectly. Recent work tries to overcome this issue by retrieving global information to augment the local context. However, this bloats the prompt or requires architecture modifications and additional training. Integrated development environments (IDEs) assist developers by bringing the global context at their fingertips using static analysis. We extend this assistance, enjoyed by developers, to the LMs. We propose a notion of monitors that use static analysis in the background to guide the decoding. Unlike a priori retrieval, static analysis is invoked iteratively during the entire decoding process, providing the most relevant suggestions on demand. We demonstrate the usefulness of our proposal by monitoring for type-consistent use of identifiers whenever an LM generates code for object dereference. To evaluate our approach, we curate PragmaticCode, a dataset of open-source projects with their development environments. On models of varying parameter scale, we show that monitor-guided decoding consistently improves the ability of an LM to not only generate identifiers that match the ground truth but also improves compilation rates and agreement with ground truth. We find that LMs with fewer parameters, when guided with our monitor, can outperform larger LMs. With monitor-guided decoding, SantaCoder-1.1B achieves better compilation rate and next-identifier match than the much larger text-davinci-003 model. The datasets and code will be released at https://aka.ms/monitors4codegen .

Formal verification can provably guarantee the correctness of critical system software, but the high proof burden has long hindered its wide adoption. Recently, Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown success in code analysis and synthesis. In this paper, we present a combination of LLMs and static analysis to synthesize invariants, assertions, and other proof structures for a Rust-based formal verification framework called Verus. In a few-shot setting, LLMs demonstrate impressive logical ability in generating postconditions and loop invariants, especially when analyzing short code snippets. However, LLMs lack the ability to retain and propagate context information, a strength of traditional static analysis. Based on these observations, we developed a prototype based on OpenAI's GPT-4 model. Our prototype decomposes the verification task into multiple smaller ones, iteratively queries GPT-4, and combines its output with lightweight static analysis. We evaluated the prototype with a developer in the automation loop on 20 vector-manipulating programs. The results demonstrate that it significantly reduces human effort in writing entry-level proof code.

Clinical protocol-execution tasks -- checking a lab value, applying a threshold, placing a correctly structured FHIR order -- are natural candidates for RL from world feedback: once clinical SMEs encode decision logic into a verifier, that verifier grades unlimited rollouts without per-episode annotation. But applying RL requires a sound feedback channel and sufficient base capability. We audit MedAgentBench v1/v2, find a 41.7\% silent-finish ceiling that makes inaction the RL dominant strategy, and construct MedAgentBench-v3 (MAB-v3) (508 tasks, 8.9\% ceiling). Training Qwen3-8B exposes two structural barriers: a capability ceiling (10/20 task types have 0\% base performance, zero gradient) and a format-knowledge barrier (3/20 types require exact clinical codes undiscoverable by exploration). Pure RL reaches 18.2\% pass@1 vs.\ 34.1\% for rule-based SFT; the 15.9~pp gap is attributable entirely to these barriers. A decision/format-knowledge/lookup taxonomy predicts RL learnability and prescribes the fix: SFT to inject codes, RL to learn conditionals.

Large Language Models excel at code generation, yet competitive programming exposes a persistent failure mode: existing multi-agent pipelines distribute work over generic planner, coder, and debugger roles and delegate the choice of algorithmic technique to the backbone alone. We present MARS (Multi-Agent Relay of Specialized LLMs), a prompt-only framework in which each agent is a topic specialist---dynamic programming, graphs, strings, geometry, and so on---grounded by retrieval-augmented generation over an algorithm-theory corpus. Given a problem, retrieval selects a small team of relevant specialists; a starter writes an initial C++17 solution, and each subsequent turn runs the candidate against public examples in a sandbox, lets the active specialist keep, repair, or hand off the draft, and forwards a structured packet to the next specialist. A single infrastructure-fixer pass normalizes boilerplate at the end. On the CodeContests test split with Gemma 4, MARS reaches 0.624 pm 0.006 pass rate at 2.3 recorded pipeline stages per task (+14.4 percentage points over direct prompting), closing most of the gap to CodeSIM (0.731) at 3.3{times} lower wall-clock cost and substantially smaller variance in per-task token spend. The source code is available on GitHub: https://github.com/fckand/mars.

LLM-Agents have evolved into autonomous systems for complex task execution, with the SKILL.md specification emerging as a de facto standard for encapsulating agent capabilities. However, a critical bottleneck remains: different agent frameworks exhibit starkly different sensitivities to prompt formatting, causing up to 40% performance variation, yet nearly all skills exist as a single, format-agnostic Markdown version. Manual per-platform rewriting creates an unsustainable maintenance burden, while prior audits have found that over one third of community skills contain security vulnerabilities. To address this, we present SkCC, a compilation framework that introduces classical compiler design into agent skill development. At its core, SkIR - a strongly-typed intermediate representation - decouples skill semantics from platform-specific formatting, enabling portable deployment across heterogeneous agent frameworks. Around this IR, a compile-time Analyzer enforces security constraints via Anti-Skill Injection before deployment. Through a four-phase pipeline, SkCC reduces adaptation complexity from O(m times n) to O(m + n). Experiments on SkillsBench demonstrate that compiled skills consistently outperform their original counterparts, improving pass rates from 21.1% to 33.3% on Claude Code and from 35.1% to 48.7% on Kimi CLI, while achieving sub-10ms compilation latency, a 94.8% proactive security trigger rate, and 10-46% runtime token savings across platforms.

Autonomous AI agents tackling Long Horizon Tasks depend on marketplace skills that are certified one at a time: a scanner returns a safety verdict for each skill and declares the ecosystem safe if every package passes. We show that this assumption fails under skill composition. A skill may pass the per-skill scanner individually yet participate in a risky composition when an agent connects its outputs, capabilities, or side effects with those of other scanner-passing skills. This makes skill composition risk a path level property rather than a node level property, explaining why existing skill scanners that inspect individual packages achieve limited interception. To study this threat, we present CompoSkill, a framework that constructs skill composition attacks through a dual attacker system. The white-box attacker knows the victim's installed skill pool and directly injects explicit skill-id sequences; the black-box attacker knows only a role profile, downloads the top marketplace skills for that scenario, builds a Skill Composition Graph, and searches for high risk chains whose implicit lures never name skill identifiers. We further construct CompoSkill-Bench, a benchmark of 1,140 records built from long-horizon professional workflows across five threats and six scenarios on OpenClaw and Nanobot. CompoSkill achieves risk Chain Formation Rates (CFR) up to 83.3% in the white box setting and 80.6% in the black box setting, while existing skill scanners block only a limited fraction of the risky compositions. Finally, we observe a bridge-bonus-then-hop-decay pattern: a bridge skill can increase attack success, but Attack Success Rate (ASR) decreases once additional hops make the risk chain longer than three skills. These results expose a systematic gap in single skill certification for autonomous AI agents.

We present AlphaApollo, a self-evolving agentic reasoning system that aims to address two bottlenecks in foundation model (FM) reasoning-limited model-intrinsic capacity and unreliable test-time iteration. AlphaApollo orchestrates multiple models with professional tools to enable deliberate, verifiable reasoning. It couples (i) a computation tool (Python with numerical and symbolic libraries) and (ii) a retrieval tool (task-relevant external information) to execute exact calculations and ground decisions. The system further supports multi-round, multi-model solution evolution via a shared state map that records candidates, executable checks, and feedback for iterative refinement. In evaluations on AIME 2024/2025 across multiple models, AlphaApollo delivers consistent gains: +5.15% Average@32 and +23.34% Pass@32 for Qwen2.5-14B-Instruct, and +8.91% Average@32 with +26.67% Pass@32 for Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct. Tool-use analysis shows that more than 80% of tool calls are successfully executed, with consistent outperformance of non-tool baselines, thereby lifting the capability ceiling of FMs. More empirical results and implementation details will be updated at https://github.com/tmlr-group/AlphaApollo.

Large language model-powered coding agents are increasingly used to modify existing code repositories, for example, by adding features or fixing bugs. Yet existing repository-level benchmarks typically evaluate only whether the final patch passes tests. Satisfying a user request requires a long chain of interdependent reasoning and decisions: an agent must recover explicit and implicit requirements, formulate a repository-grounded implementation plan, and translate it into correct code. A pass/fail outcome cannot characterize how an unsuccessful trajectory diverges from the requirements and implementation process needed for a correct patch. To address this gap, we introduce SWE-RPG, a repository-level benchmark that combines executable patch evaluation with validated ground-truth references (GTs) for (1) Requirement Clarification and (2) Implementation Planning. These intermediate GTs support retrospective, GT-aligned diagnosis of complete coding-agent trajectories across clarification, planning, code generation, and artifact submission. SWE-RPG comprises 163 tasks from 31 Python and Java repositories, including 113 bug fixes and 50 feature additions. We evaluate 3 coding agents, including Claude Code, Codex, and OpenCode, with 6 large language model backends, including Claude-Sonnet-5 and GPT-5.6-Terra. Results show that the evaluated popular coding agents still struggle to implement user requests in existing repositories, achieving an average resolved rate of only 31.5% on SWE-RPG. Intermediate-GT diagnosis further identifies implicit requirement recovery as the main bottleneck, accounting for 24.5%--46.0% of agent runs. This result suggests implicit-requirement recovery as a key candidate direction for improving coding agents. The benchmark data and evaluation code are available at https://github.com/Xin-Zhou-smu/SWE-RPG-Bench.

Large language models (LLMs) introduce new security risks, but there are few comprehensive evaluation suites to measure and reduce these risks. We present BenchmarkName, a novel benchmark to quantify LLM security risks and capabilities. We introduce two new areas for testing: prompt injection and code interpreter abuse. We evaluated multiple state-of-the-art (SOTA) LLMs, including GPT-4, Mistral, Meta Llama 3 70B-Instruct, and Code Llama. Our results show that conditioning away risk of attack remains an unsolved problem; for example, all tested models showed between 26% and 41% successful prompt injection tests. We further introduce the safety-utility tradeoff: conditioning an LLM to reject unsafe prompts can cause the LLM to falsely reject answering benign prompts, which lowers utility. We propose quantifying this tradeoff using False Refusal Rate (FRR). As an illustration, we introduce a novel test set to quantify FRR for cyberattack helpfulness risk. We find many LLMs able to successfully comply with "borderline" benign requests while still rejecting most unsafe requests. Finally, we quantify the utility of LLMs for automating a core cybersecurity task, that of exploiting software vulnerabilities. This is important because the offensive capabilities of LLMs are of intense interest; we quantify this by creating novel test sets for four representative problems. We find that models with coding capabilities perform better than those without, but that further work is needed for LLMs to become proficient at exploit generation. Our code is open source and can be used to evaluate other LLMs.

Agent benchmarks typically report only final outcomes: pass or fail. This threatens evaluation credibility in three ways. First, scores may be inflated or deflated by shortcuts and benchmark artifacts, misrepresenting capability. Second, benchmark performance may fail to predict real-world utility due to scaffold limitations and recurring failure modes. Finally, capability scores may conceal dangerous or catastrophic actions taken by the agent. We argue that log analysis -- the systematic tracking and analysis of the inputs, execution, and outputs of an AI agent -- is necessary to overcome these validity threats and promote credible agent evaluation. In this paper, we (1) present a taxonomy of threats to credible evaluation documented through log analysis, and (2) develop a set of guiding principles for log analysis. We illustrate these principles on tau-Bench Airline, revealing that pass^5 performance was under-elicited by nearly 50% and surfacing deployment failure modes invisible to outcome metrics. We conclude with pragmatic recommendations to increase uptake of log analysis, directed at diverse stakeholders including benchmark creators, model developers, independent evaluators, and deployers.

Translating C code into safe, idiomatic Rust is a longstanding software-engineering goal because it can eliminate entire classes of memory-safety vulnerabilities while preserving the functional behavior of legacy systems. Large language models (LLMs) have shown promise for this task but typically underperform when applied off-the-shelf, since general-purpose pretraining rarely emphasizes idiomatic Rust generation, cross-language semantic equivalence, or the ability to reason about and repair compiler/runtime feedback. In this report we describe a three-stage fine-tuning curriculum applied to Qwen3-27B that is designed to progressively specialize the model for the C-to-Rust (C2Rust) translation task: (1) continued pretraining on Rust-centric corpora to strengthen the model's prior over idiomatic Rust syntax and standard-library usage; (2) supervised fine-tuning (SFT) on the microsoft/Verus_Training_Data dataset to instill debugging and self-repair behavior over Rust code; and (3) task-specific SFT on paired C/Rust solutions derived from LeetCode problems to teach direct semantic translation. We evaluate the resulting model using the agentic, static-analysis-guided verification framework of SACTOR, which performs structure-aware, two-phase (unidiomatic to idiomatic) translation with foreign-function-interface (FFI)-based end-to-end (E2E) testing. We report success rate, idiomaticity (Clippy lint counts, unsafe-code fraction), and failure-mode analyses, and compare our fine-tuned model against baseline Qwen3-27B and other LLMs evaluated under the same framework.

Large language models (LLMs) can translate natural language into optimization code, but silent failures pose a critical risk: code that executes and returns solver-feasible solutions may encode semantically incorrect formulations, creating a feasibility-correctness gap of up to 90 percentage points on compositional problems. We introduce ReLoop, addressing silent failures from two complementary directions. Structured generation decomposes code production into a four-stage reasoning chain (understand, formalize, synthesize, verify) that mirrors expert modeling practice, with explicit variable-type reasoning and self-verification to prevent formulation errors at their source. Behavioral verification detects errors that survive generation by testing whether the formulation responds correctly to solver-based parameter perturbation, without requiring ground truth -- an external semantic signal that bypasses the self-consistency problem inherent in LLM-based code review. The two mechanisms are complementary: structured generation dominates on complex compositional problems, while behavioral verification becomes the largest single contributor on problems with localized formulation defects. Together with execution recovery via IIS-enhanced diagnostics, ReLoop raises correctness from 22.6% to 31.1% and execution from 72.1% to 100.0% on the strongest model, with consistent gains across five models spanning three paradigms (foundation, SFT, RL) and three benchmarks. We additionally release RetailOpt-190, 190 compositional retail optimization scenarios targeting the multi-constraint interactions where LLMs most frequently fail.

Automated issue solving aims to resolve real-world issues in software repositories. The most popular benchmarks for automated issue solving are SWE-bench and its human-filtered subset SWE-bench Verified. These benchmarks leverage testing to validate generated patches. However, because testing is rarely exhaustive, a patch may pass the tests but nevertheless fail to match the developers' expectations. Unfortunately, it is currently unclear to what extent evaluations performed with SWE-bench suffer from such plausible but incorrect patches. This paper presents an in-depth empirical study of the correctness of plausible patches generated by three state-of-the-art issue-solving tools evaluated on SWE-bench Verified. We extensively test and inspect generated patches, and compare them against human-written ground truth patches. The core of our methodology is a novel technique PatchDiff for differential patch testing, which automatically exposes behavioral discrepancies between two patches. Our findings reveal critical weaknesses in SWE-bench's patch validation mechanism, which causes 7.8% of all patches to count as correct while failing the developer-written test suite. Moreover, our novel automated technique reveals that even more (29.6%) plausible patches induce different behavior than the ground truth patches. These behavioral differences are often due to similar, but divergent implementations (46.8%) and due to generated patches that adapt more behavior than the ground truth patches (27.3%). Our manual inspection shows that 28.6% of behaviorally divergent patches are certainly incorrect. Combined, the different weaknesses lead to an inflation of reported resolution rates by 6.2 absolute percent points. Our findings are a call to arms for more robust and reliable evaluation of issue-solving tools. We envision our automated differential patch testing technique to be useful for this purpose.

Repository-level performance-optimization benchmarks such as GSO, SWE-Perf and SWE-fficiency evaluate coding agents by applying patches to real repositories and comparing runtime against unoptimized baselines and official reference patches. Their leaderboard scores are increasingly used as evidence of coding-agent progress, but those scores can conflate runtime instability, benchmark-specific scoring rules, and how many tasks are already solved by at least one public submission. We audit these issues across the three benchmarks. First, we replay the official reference patches for 740 code optimization tasks across four common types of Google Cloud machines. Most benchmark tasks can be replayed, but their reference patches satisfy the original benchmark validity rules in every cross-machine replay for only 39/102 GSO tasks, 11/140 SWE-Perf tasks, and 411/498 SWE-fficiency tasks; SWE-Perf is especially fragile because many reference patches produce close-to-zero runtime changes. Second, we show that public submission rankings depend strongly on the benchmark scoring rule. Among eight public submissions shared by GSO and SWE-fficiency, the official rankings disagree on 9 of 28 pairwise submission comparisons, and SWE-fficiency's leaderboard scoring rule assigns the worst ten tasks overly high score weights of 58.5%-82.8%. Third, looking across 10 public submissions for each task, we find that at least one submission matches or beats the reference patch on 85.3% (384/450) of replay-valid GSO and SWE-fficiency tasks, and beats the unoptimized base code on 99.8% (449/450). Our study complements leaderboard scores by identifying tasks with more reliable performance signals, quantifying per-task score contributions, and exposing the remaining performance gaps that are hidden by aggregate rankings.

Java remains central to enterprise software, and many applications outlive their original architecture. Migrating them across frameworks is a behavior-preserving refactoring spanning build configuration, dependency injection, persistence, request handling, and deployment. Existing software-engineering benchmarks cover bug fixing, feature implementation, and language or version modernization, but leave cross-framework refactoring largely unmeasured. We introduce ScarfBench, a benchmark for behavior-preserving cross-framework refactoring of enterprise Java applications. It is built from expert-written implementation triples across Spring, Jakarta EE, and Quarkus: 34 applications (29 focused single-layer, 5 whole) yielding 102 variants (~151K lines across 1946 source and test files) and 204 directed refactoring tasks. Each task gives an agent a working source application and a target framework; the agent must synthesize a target implementation preserving the source behavior. Correctness is evaluated by an application-specific executable oracle: the candidate must compile, deploy in a containerized target runtime, and pass behavioral tests over the application's observable interface. We evaluate five state-of-the-art coding agents on ScarfBench. The strongest achieves only 15.3% aggregate test pass on focused-layer migrations and 12.2% on whole applications, and only one of the 204 tasks yields a fully behaviorally equivalent target. Difficulty is asymmetric across framework directions and architectural layers: Spring<->Quarkus is the most tractable pair, and Jakarta-targeted migrations are hardest. From LLM-as-a-judge and expert adjudication of failed-task traces, we derive a taxonomy of recurring failure categories spanning build, deploy, and test stages. We release the benchmark, harness, and agent traces at https://scarfbench.info.

Large language models are increasingly deployed as autonomous agents executing multi-step workflows in real-world software environments. However, existing agent benchmarks suffer from three critical limitations: (1) trajectory-opaque grading that checks only final outputs, (2) underspecified safety and robustness evaluation, and (3) narrow modality coverage and interaction paradigms. We introduce Claw-Eval, an end-to-end evaluation suite addressing all three gaps. It comprises 300 human-verified tasks spanning 9 categories across three groups (general service orchestration, multimodal perception and generation, and multi-turn professional dialogue). Every agent action is recorded through three independent evidence channels (execution traces, audit logs, and environment snapshots), enabling trajectory-aware grading over 2,159 fine-grained rubric items. The scoring protocol evaluates Completion, Safety, and Robustness, reporting Average Score, Pass@k, and Pass^k across three trials to distinguish genuine capability from lucky outcomes. Experiments on 14 frontier models reveal that: (1) trajectory-opaque evaluation is systematically unreliable, missing 44% of safety violations and 13% of robustness failures that our hybrid pipeline catches; (2) controlled error injection primarily degrades consistency rather than peak capability, with Pass^3 dropping up to 24% while Pass@3 remains stable; (3) multimodal performance varies sharply, with most models performing poorer on video than on document or image, and no single model dominating across all modalities. Beyond benchmarking, Claw-Eval highlights actionable directions for agent development, shedding light on what it takes to build agents that are not only capable but reliably deployable.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have substantially influenced various software engineering tasks. Indeed, in the case of software refactoring, traditional LLMs have shown the ability to reduce development time and enhance code quality. However, these LLMs often rely on static, detailed instructions for specific tasks. In contrast, LLM-based agents can dynamically adapt to evolving contexts and autonomously make decisions by interacting with software tools and executing workflows. In this paper, we explore the potential of LLM-based agents in supporting refactoring activities. Specifically, we introduce RefAgent, a multi-agent LLM-based framework for end-to-end software refactoring. RefAgent consists of specialized agents responsible for planning, executing, testing, and iteratively refining refactorings using self-reflection and tool-calling capabilities. We evaluate RefAgent on eight open-source Java projects, comparing its effectiveness against a single-agent approach, a search-based refactoring tool, and historical developer refactorings. Our assessment focuses on: (1) the impact of generated refactorings on software quality, (2) the ability to identify refactoring opportunities, and (3) the contribution of each LLM agent through an ablation study. Our results show that RefAgent achieves a median unit test pass rate of 90%, reduces code smells by a median of 52.5%, and improves key quality attributes (e.g., reusability) by a median of 8.6%. Additionally, it closely aligns with developer refactorings and the search-based tool in identifying refactoring opportunities, attaining a median F1-score of 79.15% and 72.7%, respectively. Compared to single-agent approaches, RefAgent improves the median unit test pass rate by 64.7% and the median compilation success rate by 40.1%. These findings highlight the promise of multi-agent architectures in advancing automated software refactoring.

The application of large-language models (LLMs) to digital hardware code generation is an emerging field. Most LLMs are primarily trained on natural language and software code. Hardware code, such as Verilog, represents only a small portion of the training data and few hardware benchmarks exist. To address this gap, the open-source VerilogEval benchmark was released in 2023, providing a consistent evaluation framework for LLMs on code completion tasks. It was tested on state-of-the-art models at the time including GPT-4. However, VerilogEval and other Verilog generation benchmarks lack failure analysis and, in present form, are not conducive to exploring prompting techniques. Also, since VerilogEval's release, both commercial and open-source models have seen continued development. In this work, we evaluate new commercial and open-source models of varying sizes against an improved VerilogEval benchmark suite. We enhance VerilogEval's infrastructure and dataset by automatically classifying failures, introduce new prompts for supporting in-context learning (ICL) examples, and extend the supported tasks to specification-to-RTL translation. We find a measurable improvement in commercial state-of-the-art models, with GPT-4 Turbo achieving a 59% pass rate on spec-to-RTL tasks. We also study the performance of open-source and domain-specific models that have emerged, and demonstrate that models can benefit substantially from ICL. We find that recently-released Llama 3.1 405B achieves a pass rate of 58%, effectively matching that of GPT-4 Turbo, and that the much smaller domain-specific RTL-Coder 6.7B models achieve an impressive 37% pass rate. However, prompt engineering is key to achieving good pass rates, and varies widely with model and task. A benchmark infrastructure that allows for prompt engineering and failure analysis is key to continued model development and deployment.

Coding agents increasingly act as codebase-scale collaborators that can assist with codebase conversion, but this progress has exposed a critical weakness: agents often over-trust their own local validation routines and declare success on artifacts that satisfy surface checks while violating the semantic contracts users actually care about. This problem is especially acute in codebase conversion, where prior evaluation is largely outcome-driven and therefore unstable: two implementations can match on a shallow outcome, such as a single forward loss, while diverging in gradients, optimizer behavior, or short-horizon training dynamics. We introduce T2J-Bench, a benchmark for codebase conversion that reformulates conversion as transfer under a fixed equivalence contract. A fixed verifier then compares source and converted codebases through three ordered stages: Spec (interface admissibility), Numeric (forward outputs, losses, gradients, and objective-specific tensors), and Behavioral (short training dynamics under fixed seeds). Across 355 blind conversion attempts, the best system reaches only 26.7--28.9% overall pass rate despite Spec pass rates up to 91.1%; a 4.7x token-budget spread yields only a 2.2x pass-rate spread; and all systems overestimate success by 66.6--97.8 points relative to the fixed evaluator. This suggests that failures stem more from contract-misaligned self-validation than from limited budget or backbone strength.

AI agents are rapidly improving in cybersecurity capabilities when the source code is available for analysis, yet much of the software most consequential to cybersecurity, including malware, firmware, and proprietary applications, is available only as binaries. Analyzing such software requires reverse engineering(RE): recovering program semantics before the analysis can be meaningfully performed. However, evaluating agentic RE poses a fundamental challenge: benchmark instances must be unseen as source code in the LLMs' training data to prevent models from taking shortcuts by recognizing them rather than really analyzing them, while also matching the scale and anti-analysis protections of real software. Unfortunately, however, existing benchmarks do not jointly satisfy these requirements. To this end, we introduce SRE-Bench, the first realistic, contamination-free RE benchmark. Built entirely from scratch by RE experts with over 5,000 hours, SRE-Bench comprises 19 private, real-world-scale programs averaging 16.9K lines of code. We further developed 44 in-house anti-analysis primitives, yielding 262 binary instances and 1572 deterministically graded tasks. Our evaluation across five frontier LLMs (GPT-5.6-sol,Claude-Opus-5,GPT-5.5,Grok-4.5, and GLM-5.2) shows that RE remains largely unsolved: the strongest model, GPT-5.6-sol, scores 61.4% per instance, and fully solves only 31.5% of the instances. Our analysis further reveals that agents behave differently from human engineers, where agents are relatively insensitive to compiler optimization and static linking. Controlled ablations also confirm that both contamination control and realistic scale are essential. These results indicate that strong source-code security capabilities do not yet transfer to binary analysis, highlighting RE as an important frontier for agentic cybersecurity and SRE-Bench as a rigorous testbed to measure progress.

Constructing large-scale datasets for the GitHub issue resolution task is crucial for both training and evaluating the software engineering capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs). However, the traditional process for creating such benchmarks is notoriously challenging and labor-intensive, particularly in the stages of setting up evaluation environments, grading test outcomes, and validating task instances. In this paper, we propose SWE-Factory, an automated pipeline designed to address these challenges. To tackle these issues, our pipeline integrates three core automated components. First, we introduce SWE-Builder, a multi-agent system that automates evaluation environment construction, which employs four specialized agents that work in a collaborative, iterative loop and leverages an environment memory pool to enhance efficiency. Second, we introduce a standardized, exit-code-based grading method that eliminates the need for manually writing custom parsers. Finally, we automate the fail2pass validation process using these reliable exit code signals. Experiments on 671 issues across four programming languages show that our pipeline can effectively construct valid task instances; for example, with GPT-4.1-mini, our SWE-Builder constructs 269 valid instances at 0.045 per instance, while with Gemini-2.5-flash, it achieves comparable performance at the lowest cost of 0.024 per instance. We also demonstrate that our exit-code-based grading achieves 100% accuracy compared to manual inspection, and our automated fail2pass validation reaches a precision of 0.92 and a recall of 1.00. We hope our automated pipeline will accelerate the collection of large-scale, high-quality GitHub issue resolution datasets for both training and evaluation. Our code and datasets are released at https://github.com/DeepSoftwareAnalytics/swe-factory.

Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) excel at complex reasoning but are traditionally evaluated in static, "frozen world" settings: model responses are assumed to be instantaneous, and the context of a request is presumed to be immutable over the duration of the response. While generally true for short-term tasks, the "frozen world" assumption breaks down in modern reasoning tasks such as assistive programming, where models may take hours to think through problems and code may change dramatically from the time the model starts thinking to the model's final output. In this work, we challenge the frozen world assumption and evaluate LRM robustness under two realistic dynamic scenarios: interruptions, which test the quality of the model's partial outputs on a limited budget, and dynamic context, which tests model adaptation to in-flight changes. Across mathematics and programming benchmarks that require long-form reasoning, static evaluations consistently overestimate robustness: even state-of-the-art LRMs, which achieve high accuracy in static settings, can fail unpredictably when interrupted or exposed to changing context, with performance dropping by up to 60% when updates are introduced late in the reasoning process. Our analysis further reveals several novel failure modes, including reasoning leakage, where models fold the reasoning into their final answer when interrupted; panic, where under time pressure models abandon reasoning entirely and return incorrect answers; and self-doubt, where performance degrades while incorporating updated information.

As large language models become increasingly widespread, third-party providers that deploy open-weight models have become an important part of the ecosystem. Auditing the quality of their inference APIs is therefore an open problem. We formalize hosted model routing as a stochastic process and propose \textbf{Ventor-QTest}, a composite black-box audit that requires no probability information from the target API. Its repeated-request component sends each frozen constrained context to the target multiple times, reconstructs a categorical output distribution from the returned text counts, and reports average fidelity loss (AFL) as a null-bias-corrected, within-window mean coarsened-KL statistic. Its long-sequence component uses independent runs to report extreme fidelity loss (EFL) through the empirical upper tail of a run-level reference-centered-surprisal statistic. Across three logprob-capable route conditions, AFL shows strong linear descriptive agreement with a logprob-derived coarsened-KL comparator. Across seven route snapshots, 20-run sequence probes reveal route-specific EFL variation. AFL and EFL have little detectable route-level association with GPQA-Diamond accuracy. In contrast, pronounced EFL coincides with a decline in Terminal-Bench pass rate as task exposure increases. This pattern may arise because correctness in long-horizon tasks is more sensitive to extreme fidelity loss. These results motivate reporting AFL and EFL jointly, particularly when auditing long-horizon agentic tasks. The open-source implementation is available at https://github.com/Tencent/AI-Infra-Guard/tree/main/services/api_checker/ventor_qtest.

Recently, an increasing number of AI-driven programming assistants powered by code LLMs have been integrated into various real-world software development environments, significantly boosting developer productivity. However, existing code generation benchmarks primarily focus on general-purpose scenarios, leaving the code generation performance of LLMs for specific application domains largely unknown. In this paper, we introduce a new benchmark, MultiCodeBench, to fill this gap. MultiCodeBench comprises 2,400 programming tasks, covering 12 popular software development domains and 15 programming languages. Specifically, we perform in-depth research to identify these 12 application domains. Given that each domain may involve multiple technical frameworks, and that different frameworks present distinct challenges in the coding process, we categorize the commonly used frameworks and platforms within each domain. We then sample programming problems from GitHub repositories related to these subdomains. To ensure the quality of the tasks and mitigate data leakage issues, we invite annotators to rewrite the docstrings for each task in MultiCodeBench. Additionally, we build a static analysis-based dependency parsing tool to extract the dependencies in the ground truth for each task, enabling deeper performance analysis. Through extensive experiments on MultiCodeBench with eleven representative mainstream LLMs, we reveal the code generation performance of the LLMs across different application domains, providing practical insights for developers in downstream fields when selecting LLMs. Furthermore, we analyze the reasons behind the models' failures in completing software application development tasks, offering guidance for model developers to enhance domain-specific code generation capabilities.

Recent development of large language models (LLMs) for code like CodeX and CodeT5+ demonstrates tremendous promise in achieving code intelligence. Their ability of synthesizing code that completes a program for performing a pre-defined task has been intensively tested and verified on benchmark datasets including HumanEval and MBPP. Yet, evaluation of these LLMs from more perspectives (than just program synthesis) is also anticipated, considering their broad scope of applications in software engineering. In this paper, we explore the ability of LLMs for testing programs/code. By performing thorough analyses of recent LLMs for code in program testing, we show a series of intriguing properties of these models and demonstrate how program testing ability of LLMs can be improved. Following recent work which utilizes generated test cases to enhance program synthesis, we further leverage our findings in improving the quality of the synthesized programs and show +11.77% and +4.22% higher code pass rates on HumanEval+ comparing with the GPT-3.5-turbo baseline and the recent state-of-the-art, respectively.

LLM-based agents can act on behalf of a user to access cloud services, call tools, or invoke agents. At session start, the agent's permissions are set but remain static, and each request is evaluated independently, without considering prior actions. Within its permissions, an agent may act contrary to the delegated task, combine individually permitted actions into a prohibited outcome, or delegate authority to a sub-agent without limiting it. A prompt injection poses a risk only if the agent has authority to perform such actions; this is therefore a problem of authorization architecture, not just the model. The Agentic Principal Chain (APC) tracks delegated authority from one principal to the next. APC evaluates each request against the accumulated session state using six authorization checks. APC carries forward and restricts delegated scope and budgets. Using composition closure, APC checks requests against prior actions to prevent prohibited combinations and enforces the decision outside the model. We prove Blast Radius Monotonicity and Composition Soundness for APC implementations; Composition Soundness is limited to prohibited combinations under a complete restriction set and serialized admission. We evaluated 3,154 instances including InjecAgent, AgentDojo, and ASB. Our compromised-model evaluation tests APC independently of model behavior by inserting the ground-truth attack call after the first legitimate tool call. AgentDojo exfiltration fell from 75-100% to 0% across all four domains; APC blocked all 544 InjecAgent data-stealing cases. Intent binding reduced destruction from 38.6% to 4.0% and manipulation from 90.5% to 12.1%. Authorization latency was 0.24 ms at the 99th percentile on an idle host; across 949 AgentDojo task-injection pairs, utility was 8.6 and 13.9 percentage points lower in the two settings. Implementation, evaluation tools, and data are publicly available.

We study the process through which reasoning models trained with reinforcement learning on verifiable rewards (RLVR) can learn to solve new problems. We find that RLVR drives performance in two main ways: (1) by compressing pass@k into pass@1 and (2) via "capability gain" in which models learn to solve new problems that they previously could not solve even at high k. We find that while capability gain exists across model scales, learning to solve new problems is primarily driven through self-distillation. We demonstrate these findings across model scales ranging from 0.5B to 72B parameters on >500,000 reasoning problems with prompts and verifiable final answers across math, science, and code domains. We further show that we can significantly improve pass@k rates by leveraging natural language guidance for the model to consider within context while still requiring the model to derive a solution chain from scratch. Based of these insights, we derive Guide -- a new class of online training algorithms. Guide adaptively incorporates hints into the model's context on problems for which all rollouts were initially incorrect and adjusts the importance sampling ratio for the "off-policy" trajectories in order to optimize the policy for contexts in which the hints are no longer present. We describe variants of Guide for GRPO and PPO and empirically show that Guide-GRPO on 7B and 32B parameter models improves generalization over its vanilla counterpart with up to 4% macro-average improvement across math benchmarks. We include careful ablations to analyze Guide's components and theoretically analyze Guide's learning efficiency.

Recent advances in automated test generation utilises language models to produce unit tests. While effective, language models tend to generate many incorrect tests with respect to both syntax and semantics. Although such incorrect tests can be easily detected and discarded, they constitute a "missed opportunity" -- if fixed, they are often valuable as they directly add testing value (they effectively target the underlying program logic to be tested) and indirectly form good seeds for generating additional tests. To this end, we propose a simple technique for repairing some of these incorrect tests through a combination of rule-based static analysis and re-prompting. We evaluate this simple approach, named YATE, on a set of 6 open-source projects and show that it can effectively produce tests that cover on average 32.06% more lines and kill 21.77% more mutants than a plain LLM-based method. We also compare YATE with four other LLM-based methods, namely HITS, SYMPROMPT, TESTSPARK and COVERUP and show that it produces tests that cover substantially more code. YATE achieves 22% higher line coverage, 20% higher branch coverage and kill 20% more mutants at a comparable cost (number of calls to LLMs).

Trusted Execution Environments (TEEs) provide hardware-based isolation to protect sensitive data and computations from potentially compromised operating systems (OS). However, TEE applications inevitably interact with the untrusted OS through SDK interfaces, and improper partitioning can introduce severe vulnerabilities such as data leakage and code injection. While prior work has proposed static analysis tools to detect such issues, automated repair remains largely unexplored. This problem is particularly challenging due to three TEE-specific factors: the lack of standardized secure development guidelines, the difficulty of extracting semantic information from low-level C code, and the absence of mature testing and validation methods. In this work, we present TEERepair, a framework for automatically repairing bad partitioning issues in TEE applications. Our approach tackles the above challenges by introducing a domain-specific language (DSL) to encode repair rules that express and capture common TEE security patterns, which are instantiated as patch templates with placeholders for context-specific variables. We then leverage large language models (LLMs) to reason about code semantics and synthesize context-aware patches, and further generate test clients to validate the repairs. We evaluate TEERepair on the TEE Partitioning Errors Benchmark (PartitioningE-Bench), achieving a significantly higher repair success rate of 87.6% compared to baselines. Furthermore, applying TEERepair to real-world TEE projects, we submitted 5 repair pull requests, 2 of which have been confirmed and merged by project maintainers.

We introduce AnyTool, a large language model agent designed to revolutionize the utilization of a vast array of tools in addressing user queries. We utilize over 16,000 APIs from Rapid API, operating under the assumption that a subset of these APIs could potentially resolve the queries. AnyTool primarily incorporates three elements: an API retriever with a hierarchical structure, a solver aimed at resolving user queries using a selected set of API candidates, and a self-reflection mechanism, which re-activates AnyTool if the initial solution proves impracticable. AnyTool is powered by the function calling feature of GPT-4, eliminating the need for training external modules. We also revisit the evaluation protocol introduced by previous works and identify a limitation in this protocol that leads to an artificially high pass rate. By revising the evaluation protocol to better reflect practical application scenarios, we introduce an additional benchmark, termed AnyToolBench. Experiments across various datasets demonstrate the superiority of our AnyTool over strong baselines such as ToolLLM and a GPT-4 variant tailored for tool utilization. For instance, AnyTool outperforms ToolLLM by +35.4% in terms of average pass rate on ToolBench. Code will be available at https://github.com/dyabel/AnyTool.

Large language models (LLMs) have been widely adopted across diverse software engineering domains, such as code generation, program repair, and vulnerability detection. These applications require understanding beyond surface-level code patterns: value propagation, control flow, and interdependence between program elements. However, existing benchmarks primarily evaluate end-to-end outcomes, such as whether code is correctly repaired or generated, leaving the models ability for program semantic reasoning underexplored. This work presents CoRe, a high-quality, human-verified benchmark designed to evaluate LLMs on fundamental static analysis tasks. CoRe includes 12,553 task instances spanning data dependency, control dependency, and information flow across programs written in C/C++, Java, and Python. To ensure semantic diversity and reasoning complexity, we propose a semantics-aware diverse sampling strategy that selects targets and task instances based on structural coverage and dependency depth. We evaluate 10 mainstream LLMs and show that, while they perform well at identifying dependencies, models still struggle with tasks that require deeper semantic understanding and multi-step reasoning. We further conduct qualitative analyses to uncover key challenges, such as complex control structures and backward dependency patterns, offering insights into improving LLMs code reasoning capabilities.

Benchmarks are widely used to evaluate task completion by Large Language Models (LLMs), but this approach has accumulated construction-validity problems, and a passing score may not show whether the requested task was delivered. We study both problems. In a controlled code-as-spec setup, two production Copilot CLI agents (claude-opus-4.7, gpt-5.5) re-implement a React Fluent-UI data table in Angular as a reusable library under a hidden 222-test Playwright oracle across 18 runs and three oracle-availability conditions. Alongside the score, we run a mechanical library audit and check each verdict with a no-op ablation. Without the oracle, the library is present but unfinished, revealed by scores. With the oracle in the loop, the score reaches near-perfect, but from a demo holding the tested behavior directly, the library left dead or absent. We call this building to the test; the broader disposition behind both we call validation self-awareness. The agent does not, on its own, validate what it ships as a user would. Prevalence remains an open question across other agents, signals, and model families. Beyond benchmark scores, dispositions like validation self-awareness merit research attention.