Daily Papers

Software engineering agents (SWE) are improving rapidly, with recent gains largely driven by reinforcement learning (RL). However, RL training is constrained by the scarcity of large-scale task collections with reproducible execution environments and reliable test suites. Although a growing number of benchmarks have emerged, datasets suitable for training remain limited in scale and diversity or often target a limited set of high-resource language ecosystems. We introduce SWE-rebench V2, a language-agnostic automated pipeline for harvesting executable real-world SWE tasks and constructing RL training environments at scale. The pipeline synthesizes repository-specific installation and test procedures via an interactive setup agent, and filters unsound instances using an ensemble of LLM judges, validated against human-verified SWE-bench annotations. Using this pipeline, we construct a dataset of 32,000+ tasks spanning 20 languages and 3,600+ repositories, with pre-built images for reproducible execution. To further scale training data, we additionally release 120,000+ tasks with installation instructions, fail-to-pass tests and rich metadata, where the problem statement is generated based on the original pull request description. We validate the collected instances through a diagnostic study that covers a subset of tasks in five programming languages across seven popular models, and provide instance-level metadata that flags common confounders such as overly restrictive tests and underspecified descriptions. We release the datasets, the collection and execution code, and associated artifacts to enable large-scale training of SWE agents across diverse languages and repositories.

AI agents are increasingly expected to modify and maintain machine-learning systems in production, yet existing benchmarks primarily evaluate either competition-style ML experimentation or generic repository issue resolution. We introduce MLOps-Bench, a repository-grounded benchmark for production ML engineering. Unlike prior ML-agent benchmarks, MLOps-Bench evaluates executable lifecycle changes inside real ML repositories, spanning data pipelines, feature engineering, model training, model serving, monitoring, CI/CD and governance, and end-to-end integration. Each task is grounded in repository evidence and includes a natural-language requirement, oracle patch, plausible buggy baseline, fail-to-pass tests, pass-to-pass tests, and provenance metadata. The benchmark contains 212 validated tasks from 31 public ML repositories, with 636 fail-to-pass tests and 856 pass-to-pass tests. We evaluate six agents and find that the best system solves 31.2% of tasks while passing 68.7% of tests, showing that current agents often make partial progress but still fail production-relevant behavioral requirements. MLOps-Bench shifts agent evaluation beyond model building and issue fixing toward repository-native MLOps work where correctness depends on lifecycle reasoning, behavioral robustness, and preservation of existing system behavior.

While current software agents powered by large language models (LLMs) and agentic reinforcement learning (RL) can boost programmer productivity, their training data (e.g., GitHub issues and pull requests) and environments (e.g., pass-to-pass and fail-to-pass tests) heavily depend on human knowledge or curation, posing a fundamental barrier to superintelligence. In this paper, we present Self-play SWE-RL (SSR), a first step toward training paradigms for superintelligent software agents. Our approach takes minimal data assumptions, only requiring access to sandboxed repositories with source code and installed dependencies, with no need for human-labeled issues or tests. Grounded in these real-world codebases, a single LLM agent is trained via reinforcement learning in a self-play setting to iteratively inject and repair software bugs of increasing complexity, with each bug formally specified by a test patch rather than a natural language issue description. On the SWE-bench Verified and SWE-Bench Pro benchmarks, SSR achieves notable self-improvement (+10.4 and +7.8 points, respectively) and consistently outperforms the human-data baseline over the entire training trajectory, despite being evaluated on natural language issues absent from self-play. Our results, albeit early, suggest a path where agents autonomously gather extensive learning experiences from real-world software repositories, ultimately enabling superintelligent systems that exceed human capabilities in understanding how systems are constructed, solving novel challenges, and autonomously creating new software from scratch.

Nowadays transformer-based Large Language Models (LLM) for code generation tasks usually apply sampling and filtering pipelines. Due to the sparse reward problem in code generation tasks caused by one-token incorrectness, transformer-based models will sample redundant programs till they find a correct one, leading to low efficiency. To overcome the challenge, we incorporate Experience Replay (ER) in the fine-tuning phase, where codes and programs produced are stored and will be replayed to give the LLM agent a chance to learn from past experiences. Based on the spirit of ER, we introduce a novel approach called BTP pipeline which consists of three phases: beam search sampling, testing phase, and prioritized experience replay phase. The approach makes use of failed programs collected by code models and replays programs with high Possibility and Pass-rate Prioritized value (P2Value) from the replay buffer to improve efficiency. P2Value comprehensively considers the possibility of transformers' output and pass rate and can make use of the redundant resources caused by the problem that most programs collected by LLMs fail to pass any tests. We empirically apply our approach in several LLMs, demonstrating that it enhances their performance in code generation tasks and surpasses existing baselines.

The rapid advancement of Large Language Models (LLMs) has given rise to a novel software development paradigm known as "vibe coding," where users interact with coding agents through high-level natural language. However, existing evaluation benchmarks for code generation inadequately assess an agent's vibe coding capabilities. Existing benchmarks are misaligned, as they either require code-level specifications or focus narrowly on issue-solving, neglecting the critical scenario of feature implementation within the vibe coding paradiam. To address this gap, we propose FeatBench, a novel benchmark for vibe coding that focuses on feature implementation. Our benchmark is distinguished by several key features: 1. Pure Natural Language Prompts. Task inputs consist solely of abstract natural language descriptions, devoid of any code or structural hints. 2. A Rigorous & Evolving Data Collection Process. FeatBench is built on a multi-level filtering pipeline to ensure quality and a fully automated pipeline to evolve the benchmark, mitigating data contamination. 3. Comprehensive Test Cases. Each task includes Fail-to-Pass (F2P) and Pass-to-Pass (P2P) tests to verify correctness and prevent regressions. 4. Diverse Application Domains. The benchmark includes repositories from diverse domains to ensure it reflects real-world scenarios. We evaluate two state-of-the-art agent frameworks with four leading LLMs on FeatBench. Our evaluation reveals that feature implementation within the vibe coding paradigm is a significant challenge, with the highest success rate of only 29.94%. Our analysis also reveals a tendency for "aggressive implementation," a strategy that paradoxically leads to both critical failures and superior software design. We release FeatBench, our automated collection pipeline, and all experimental results to facilitate further community research.

Large language model (LLM)-based software engineering agents are increasingly developed to resolve software issues by generating patches from issue reports and code repositories. Bug reproduction tests (BRTs) are an important building block for such agents and have been shown useful for patch validation. However, it remains unclear whether BRTs can also help the more central stage of patch generation. We first conduct a preliminary study and find that directly using advanced BRT generators to guide patch generation is not beneficial: fail-to-fail BRTs can mislead agents, while even fail-to-pass BRTs bring limited or negative gains. Our analysis reveals two reasons: fail-to-pass BRTs may cover only one manifestation of the reported issue, leading to partial patches, whereas fail-to-fail BRTs are unreliable as direct patch-generation targets. Motivated by these insights, we propose SWE-Doctor, a software issue resolution agent that guides patch generation with runtime diagnoses derived from multi-faceted BRT executions. SWE-Doctor first generates multi-faceted BRTs for different behavioral requirements stated in the issue, then executes and debugs these BRTs to construct runtime-grounded diagnosis records, and finally uses the diagnoses together with localization information inferred during BRT generation to guide patch generation and reduce partial patches. We evaluate SWE-Doctor on Python bug-fixing issues from the widely adopted SWE-bench Verified and SWE-bench Pro across five LLM backends. SWE-Doctor consistently outperforms existing agents across all 10 LLM-benchmark combinations, achieving average resolution rates of 75.7% on SWE-bench Verified and 59.4% on SWE-bench Pro. In particular, on the more challenging SWE-bench Pro, SWE-Doctor improves the average resolution rate by 8.0-8.9 percentage points over the baseline agents.

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.

As Large Language Models shift the programming toward human-guided ''vibe coding'', agentic coding tools increasingly rely on models to self-diagnose and repair their own subtle faults -- a capability central to autonomous software engineering yet never systematically evaluated. We present , the first empirical decomposition that jointly evaluates two coupled tasks: Fault-Triggering Test Generation (FT-Test) constructing a discriminative witness that exposes a latent bug, and Fault-targeted Program Repair (FPR), repairing it under varying diagnostic conditions. pairs competitive programming problems with LLM-generated solutions that pass partial test suites but fail on semantic edge cases, enabling controlled identification of where the diagnostic chain breaks down. Evaluating 12 frontier LLMs, we find that fault-targeted reasoning does not scale with general coding ability. Models produce syntactically valid test inputs at near-ceiling rates yet collapse on discriminative generation, with fault hypothesis generation -- not output validation -- as the dominant bottleneck. Test-guided repair reveals a complementary insight: when self-generated tests successfully witness a fault, the resulting repair matches or outperforms repair guided by externally provided tests, but tests that fail to witness the fault actively degrade repair below unguided baselines. Together, these results reframe the challenge of autonomous debugging: the binding bottleneck is not code synthesis or test validity but fault-target reasoning, a capability that remains deficient across all frontier models. As Large Language Models shift the programming toward human-guided ''vibe coding'', agentic coding tools increasingly rely on models to self-diagnose and repair their own subtle faults -- a capability central to autonomous software engineering yet never systematically evaluated.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have been profusely evaluated on their ability to answer questions on many topics and their performance on different natural language understanding tasks. Those tests are usually conducted in English, but most LLM users are not native English speakers. Therefore, it is of interest to analyze how LLMs understand other languages at different levels: from paragraphs to morphems. In this paper, we evaluate the performance of state-of-the-art LLMs in TELEIA, a recently released benchmark with similar questions to those of Spanish exams for foreign students, covering topics such as reading comprehension, word formation, meaning and compositional semantics, and grammar. The results show that LLMs perform well at understanding Spanish but are still far from achieving the level of a native speaker in terms of grammatical competence.

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.

DeepSWE is a benchmark of 113 original, long-horizon software engineering tasks for evaluating coding agents. Most public agentic coding benchmarks follow SWE-bench in mining merged fixes from public GitHub repositories, which creates two problems: the fixes and their discussion were likely seen during pretraining, so a high score can reflect recall rather than problem-solving; and each task is graded by the tests that shipped with its merged fix, which were written to confirm one specific fix rather than grade an arbitrary solution, so they can fail a correct alternative or pass an incomplete one. DeepSWE avoids both. Its tasks are written from scratch across 91 active open-source repositories and five languages and are never contributed back upstream, so their reference solutions stay out of the public record that model training scrapes; and each task is graded by a hand-written verifier that checks the requested functionality and accepts any implementation that provides it. When an independent LLM judge re-reviews graded runs, it disagrees with DeepSWE's verifier about an order of magnitude less often than with SWE-Bench Pro's inherited tests (1.4% versus 32.4%). Despite being about half the length of SWE-Bench Pro's prompts, DeepSWE's prompts describe tasks whose reference solutions touch 5.5x more code, and the benchmark separates frontier agents across a wider score band than the leaderboards on which they otherwise cluster. We release the benchmark, its verifiers, and the full record of evaluation trajectories.

Rigorous software testing is crucial for developing and maintaining high-quality code, making automated test generation a promising avenue for both improving software quality and boosting the effectiveness of code generation methods. However, while code generation with Large Language Models (LLMs) is an extraordinarily active research area, test generation remains relatively unexplored. We address this gap and investigate the capability of LLM-based Code Agents for formalizing user issues into test cases. To this end, we propose a novel benchmark based on popular GitHub repositories, containing real-world issues, ground-truth patches, and golden tests. We find that LLMs generally perform surprisingly well at generating relevant test cases with Code Agents designed for code repair exceeding the performance of systems designed specifically for test generation. Further, as test generation is a similar but more structured task than code generation, it allows for a more fine-grained analysis using fail-to-pass rate and coverage metrics, providing a dual metric for analyzing systems designed for code repair. Finally, we find that generated tests are an effective filter for proposed code fixes, doubling the precision of SWE-Agent.

Recent advances in AI-assisted programming have empowered agents to execute complex workflows via command-line interfaces, however, existing benchmarks are limited by short task horizons, data contamination from GitHub scraping, and a lack of fine-grained evaluation metrics, fail to rigorously evaluate the long-horizon planning and execution capabilities essential for realistic software engineering. To address these gaps, we introduce LongCLI-Bench, a comprehensive benchmark designed to evaluate agentic capabilities across long-horizon, realistic tasks. We curated 20 high-quality, long-horizon tasks from over 1,000 computer science assignments and real-world workflows, covering four engineering categories: from scratch, feature addition, bug fixing, and refactoring. We propose a dual-set testing protocol for LongCLI-Bench, which measures requirement fulfillment (fail-to-pass) and regression avoidance (pass-to-pass), and incorporates step-level scoring to pinpoint execution failures. Extensive experiments reveal that even state-of-the-art agents achieve pass rates below 20% in LongCLI-Bench. Step-level analysis further indicates that the majority of tasks stall at less than 30% completion, highlighting that critical failures often occur in the early stages. Although self-correction offers marginal gains, human-agent collaboration through plan injection and interactive guidance yields significantly higher improvements. These results highlight that future research must emphasize the development of synergistic human-agent workflows alongside advances in agents' planning and execution capabilities to overcome key challenges in long-horizon task performance.

While recent LLM-based terminal agents have demonstrated promising capabilities, the scarcity of high-quality, executable training data remains a critical bottleneck. Existing synthesis pipelines typically scale by retrofitting surface-level artifacts into tasks, frequently yielding ambiguous instructions, shallow execution paths, and brittle tests that provide weak learning signals. To overcome this, we introduce CLI-Universe, a principled synthesis engine that constructs terminal-agent tasks. CLI-Universe generates candidate tasks by sampling combinations across a multi-dimensional capability taxonomy (domain, skill type, capability, and engineering pillar), then grounds each candidate through evidence-guided deep research over real-world technical materials. To ensure rigorous supervision, validated blueprints are instantiated into Dockerized environments and subjected to a multi-stage executable verification pipeline featuring rubric-gated test construction, hint-conditional filtering, and strict fail-to-pass checking. Across the full pipeline, from candidate generation to verification, approximately two-thirds of candidates are discarded, retaining only those that are genuine, verifiable, and non-trivially challenging. To validate our framework, we instantiate a highly distilled dataset of 6,000 trajectories called CLI-Universe-6K. Remarkably, fine-tuning Qwen3-32B on CLI-Universe-6K achieves 33.4% on Terminal-Bench 2.0. This sets a new state-of-the-art for models trained on open-source data at or below 32B parameters, and outperforms several models an order of magnitude larger, demonstrating the profound data efficiency of structured, high-fidelity synthesis.

Behavioral Co-Versioning remains absent from mainstream practice: while developers routinely version source code with Git, they rarely persist and query how run-time behavior evolves across revisions. This paper argues that this mismatch contributes to a blind spot in software evolution analysis and CI, where rich execution information is discarded and typically reduced to pass/fail outcomes -- despite partial test oracles, flakiness, and silent output or performance drift. We propose Behavioral Co-Versioning, a paradigm that couples the Git history with a Behavioral Archive: an append-only, queryable store of selected run-time observations (e.g., method I/O and performance signals) collected during test runs and keyed by commit and test context. This enables semantic diffing, behavior-aware regression localization, and retrospective auditing by querying historical executions, complementing proactive, signal-specific monitoring tools. We first outline a minimal data model and change diagnostics based on code/test/behavior fingerprints, and then demonstrate feasibility with a laptop-scale prototype that replays historical commits of a Python project, archives run-time observations in a local Parquet-backed store, and detects behavioral changes not apparent from textual diffs.

Pass@k measures whether a model reaches a correct answer under repeated sampling, but never how: a lucky guess counts the same as sound reasoning. CoT-Pass@k was proposed to close that gap, adding an LLM-as-judge that must assess a solution's reasoning chain before it counts. Its value rests entirely on one assumption: that the judge catches flawed reasoning. That assumption has never been tested inside the metric that depends on it, and never outside English, though the metric's claims concern models used in many languages. We report the first audit of that verification step, run under the metric's own protocol on a multilingual suite of five mathematical benchmarks in English, Turkish and Portuguese, two of them natively written. We corrupt correct solutions with deterministic edits that damage the chain and the final answer separately. We observe that all three judges accept corrupted chains almost as often as clean ones. V4-Flash and Qwen3.6 reject a solution sharply only when its final answer is wrong and accept a wrong answer more readily when the chain agrees with it; the metric's own judge accepts most wrong answers as well. Our study shows that chain-answer agreement dominates the two larger judges' verdicts and that all three fail to reliably detect the tested reasoning errors. Consequently the difference Pass@k - CoT-Pass@k averages 19.7 points on an earlier solver generation but only 4.1 on the current one. What little remains depends on the token budgets on both sides and on the generation mode; raising the generation budget moves Pass@64 by more than fifty points while the difference stays at zero. We close with two checks any judged reasoning metric should pass before its numbers are read as evidence about reasoning.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown remarkable abilities across various language tasks, but solving complex reasoning problems remains a challenge. While existing methods like Chain-of-Thought (CoT) and Tree-of-Thought (ToT) enhance reasoning by decomposing problems or structuring prompts, they typically perform a single pass of reasoning and may fail to revisit flawed paths, compromising accuracy. To address this, we propose a novel reasoning framework called Forest-of-Thought (FoT), which integrates multiple reasoning trees to leverage collective decision-making for solving complex logical problems. FoT utilizes sparse activation strategies to select the most relevant reasoning paths, improving both efficiency and accuracy. Additionally, we introduce a dynamic self-correction strategy that enables real-time error correction and learning from past mistakes, as well as consensus-guided decision making strategies to optimize correctness and computational resources. Experimental results demonstrate that the FoT framework, combined with these strategies, significantly enhances the reasoning capabilities of LLMs, enabling them to solve complex tasks with greater precision and efficiency.

Competitive programming, due to its high reasoning difficulty and precise correctness feedback, has become a key task for both training and evaluating the reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs). However, while a large amount of public problem data, such as problem statements and solutions, is available, the test cases of these problems are often difficult to obtain. Therefore, test case generation is a necessary task for building large-scale datasets, and the quality of the test cases directly determines the accuracy of the evaluation. In this paper, we introduce an LLM-based agent system that creates high-quality test cases for competitive programming problems. We apply this system to the CodeContests dataset and propose a new version with improved test cases, named CodeContests+. We evaluated the quality of test cases in CodeContestsPlus. First, we used 1.72 million submissions with pass/fail labels to examine the accuracy of these test cases in evaluation. The results indicated that CodeContests+ achieves significantly higher accuracy than CodeContests, particularly with a notably higher True Positive Rate (TPR). Subsequently, our experiments in LLM Reinforcement Learning (RL) further confirmed that improvements in test case quality yield considerable advantages for RL.

Large Language Models (LLMs) and code agents in software development are rapidly evolving from generating isolated code snippets to producing full-fledged software applications with graphical interfaces, interactive logic, and dynamic behaviors. However, current benchmarks fall short in evaluating such production-ready software, as they often rely on static checks or binary pass/fail scripts, failing to capture the interactive behaviors and runtime dynamics that define real-world usability - qualities that only emerge when an application is actively used. This is the blind spot of current evaluation: you don't know if an app works until you click through it, interact with it, and observe how it responds. To bridge this gap, we introduce RealDevWorld, a novel evaluation framework for automated end-to-end assessment of LLMs' ability to generate production-ready repositories from scratch. It features two key components: (1) RealDevBench, a diverse collection of 194 open-ended software engineering tasks across multiple domains, incorporating multimodal elements to reflect real-world complexity; and (2) AppEvalPilot, a new agent-as-a-judge evaluation system that simulates realistic, GUI-based user interactions to automatically and holistically assess software functional correctness, visual fidelity, and runtime behavior. The framework delivers fine-grained, task-specific diagnostic feedback, supporting nuanced evaluation beyond simple success/failure judgments. Empirical results show that RealDevWorld delivers effective, automatic, and human-aligned evaluations, achieving an accuracy of 0.92 and a correlation of 0.85 with expert human assessments, while significantly reducing the reliance on manual review. This enables scalable, human-aligned assessment of production-level software generated by LLMs. Our code is available on GitHub.

Clinical decision-support systems are expert systems whose recommendations clinicians act on directly, yet they are usually cleared on one aggregate accuracy number from a held-out test set. That number says nothing about input reliability under encoding shifts, subgroup gaps, threshold sensitivity, or operational feasibility. We present RISED, a pre-deployment evaluation framework operationalising five dimensions (Reliability, Inclusivity, Sensitivity, Equity, Deployability) through BCa bootstrap 95% confidence intervals, literature-grounded thresholds, and Holm-Bonferroni-corrected PASS / FAIL / INCONCLUSIVE verdicts; Equity is a proxy-dependence diagnostic rather than a gating test. Applied to seven cohorts spanning 35 years (n from 303 to 99,492), RISED surfaces failures invisible to AUROC: on Diabetes 130, Reliability passes by three orders of magnitude (PSS = 0.0004) while Inclusivity (AUC parity gap = 0.262) and Sensitivity (max threshold-flip rate 49.1%) fail decisively; both NHIS cohorts reproduce this. NHANES 2021-2023, with a complete feature profile, achieves INCONCLUSIVE verdicts; BRFSS 2024 produces the suite's most severe Sensitivity failure (max threshold-flip rate 64.2%) after instrument rotation removed hypertension and cholesterol. The pattern recurs on credit- and income-prediction cohorts, confirming domain-agnosticity; a multi-model check shows the failures are data-driven, not model-specific. RISED ships as an open-source Python package complementing TRIPOD+AI, FUTURE-AI, and Fairlearn with the structured numerical evidence those standards require but do not prescribe.

Large language models (LLMs) still struggle with the rigorous reasoning demands of hard competitive programming. While recent multi-agent frameworks attempt to bridge this reliability gap, they remain fundamentally stateless: they rely on static retrieval and discard the valuable problem-solving and debugging experience gained from previous tasks. To address this, we present Solvita, an agentic evolution framework that enables continuous learning without requiring weight updates to the underlying LLM. Solvita reorganizes problem-solving into a closed-loop system of strategy selection, program synthesis, certified supervision, and targeted hacking, executed by four specialized agents: Planner, Solver, Oracle, and Hacker. Crucially, each agent is paired with a trainable, graph-structured knowledge network. As the system operates, outcome signals, such as pass/fail verdicts, test certification quality, and adversarial vulnerabilities discovered by the Hacker, are recast as reinforcement learning updates to these network weights. This allows the agents to dynamically route future queries based on past successes and failures, effectively accumulating transferable reasoning experience over time. Evaluated across CodeContests, APPS, AetherCode, and live Codeforces rounds, Solvita establishes a new state-of-the-art among code-generation agents, outperforming existing multi-agent pipelines and nearly doubling the accuracy of single-pass baselines.

Large language model (LLM) judges are often used as rewards to train policies on objectives that deterministic verifiers cannot capture. However, these rewards are often collapsed to pass/fail ({0, 1}), which reports the verdict but not how well a response met each criterion. We model each pass/fail verdict as a score on an unreported scale, compared with one cutoff. A stretch of that scale moves every score proportionally toward or away from the cutoff, but never across it, so no verdict changes. A policy is therefore free to apply any stretch without changing anything the panel reports. Under a joint-Gaussian model, a third grade adds a second threshold and removes this affine stretch ambiguity. On MATH and SciBench outputs from one seven-criterion judge, all 14 constructed criterionwise stretches were invisible after binarization but visible with three grades. At n=1{,}024, a test given both population laws had at least 96.5% power at a 1.5times stress. Retaining grades closes one blind spot created by binarization, but verdicts alone remain insufficient as some changes are still indistinguishable from genuine improvement. These include arbitrary within-grade changes and fixed-covariance, loading-aligned mean shifts -- the signature of a sycophancy-shaped lift the panel reads as competence. The shared-factor reference approximation fit MATH and SciBench but not HealthBench, delineating its empirical scope. We recommend keeping at least three grades (for example, asking the judge whether each criterion is fully, partially, or not met and rewarding {0, 0.5, 1}), and externally validating gains along the remaining direction, which no finer scale removes.

Verifying the final answer of a long reasoning trace may show that the trace is wrong but it does not distinguish three cases. The problem may lie beyond the model's capability, another attempt would succeed, or one step in an otherwise recoverable trace made the trace fail. Standard hidden-state probes are trained on final-answer correctness, a label that conflates these cases. Monte Carlo rollouts distinguish the cases and locate the failing step at additional inference cost. We test the hidden states of 4B and 8B reasoning models for the failure type and the failing step and compare each probe with the strongest baseline that uses no hidden states. On incorrect 8B traces, the confidence probe, a calibrated correctness probe at a midpoint cutoff, misses 81% of cases in which a single step makes the trace unrecoverable and 47% of cases in which another attempt would succeed. A probe with a different training design over the same states reverses the ordering of these two kinds of failure, so either ordering can be read from those states. At both scales, no single tested probe locates the failing step more accurately than a rule based only on trace length, and at 4B a probe trained to predict that step fails to outperform this rule in any of 10 runs on identical traces. The confidence probe therefore indicates that an answer is wrong, but its failure-type ordering depends on its training design.

Too many defective compute chips are escaping existing manufacturing tests -- at least an order of magnitude more than industrial targets across all compute chip types in data centers. Silent data corruptions (SDCs) caused by test escapes, when left unaddressed, pose a major threat to reliable computing. We present a three-pronged approach outlining future directions for overcoming test escapes: (a) Quick diagnosis of defective chips directly from system-level incorrect behaviors. Such diagnosis is critical for gaining insights into why so many defective chips escape existing manufacturing testing. (b) In-field detection of defective chips. (c) New test experiments to understand the effectiveness of new techniques for detecting defective chips. These experiments must overcome the drawbacks and pitfalls of previous industrial test experiments and case studies.

Recent progress in large language models (LLMs) highlights the power of scaling test-time compute to achieve strong performance on complex tasks, such as mathematical reasoning and code generation. This raises a critical question: how should model training be modified to optimize performance under a subsequent test-time compute strategy and budget? To explore this, we focus on pass@N, a simple test-time strategy that searches for a correct answer in N independent samples. We show, surprisingly, that training with cross-entropy (CE) loss can be {it misaligned} with pass@N in that pass@N accuracy {it decreases} with longer training. We explain the origins of this misalignment in terms of model overconfidence induced by CE, and experimentally verify our prediction of overconfidence as an impediment to scaling test-time compute via pass@N. Furthermore we suggest a principled, modified training loss that is better aligned to pass@N by limiting model confidence and rescuing pass@N test performance. Our algorithm demonstrates improved mathematical reasoning on MATH and MiniF2F benchmarks under several scenarios: (1) providing answers to math questions; and (2) proving theorems by searching over proof trees of varying shapes. Overall our work underscores the importance of co-designing two traditionally separate phases of LLM development: training-time protocols and test-time search and reasoning strategies.

Flaky tests are software tests that exhibit a seemingly random outcome (pass or fail) when run against the same, identical code. Previous work has examined fixes to flaky tests and has proposed automated solutions to locate as well as fix flaky tests--we complement it by examining the perceptions of software developers about the nature, relevance, and challenges of this phenomenon. We asked 21 professional developers to classify 200 flaky tests they previously fixed, in terms of the nature of the flakiness, the origin of the flakiness, and the fixing effort. We complement this analysis with information about the fixing strategy. Subsequently, we conducted an online survey with 121 developers with a median industrial programming experience of five years. Our research shows that: The flakiness is due to several different causes, four of which have never been reported before, despite being the most costly to fix; flakiness is perceived as significant by the vast majority of developers, regardless of their team's size and project's domain, and it can have effects on resource allocation, scheduling, and the perceived reliability of the test suite; and the challenges developers report to face regard mostly the reproduction of the flaky behavior and the identification of the cause for the flakiness. Data and materials [https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3265785].

Skill-based prompting has become a practical mechanism for improving large language model (LLM) agents, yet existing skill acquisition methods often treat skills as experience summaries, memory entries, or direct summaries of successful demonstrations. This creates a mismatch for weaker student agents: when a student fails because it lacks task knowledge or operational strategy, its failed trajectory may not contain enough evidence to infer the missing behavior, while the teacher trajectory may be too implicit to be internalized as reusable guidance. We propose SKILL-KD, a contrastive skill distillation framework that treats skills as an explicit distillation medium between agents of different capabilities. Given a student failure and the teacher trajectory on the same task, SKILL-KD distills their actionable discrepancy into a textual skill patch, evaluates the patch by re-running the student, and iteratively refines the patch when the student still fails. To prevent repeated local updates from causing skill drift, SKILL-KD further maintains trace-linked edit histories and performs Drift-Aware Skill Consolidation, deciding whether each patch should add a new rule, delete or modify an existing rule, or be skipped. Across five agent benchmarks and two student settings, SKILL-KD consistently improves frozen student agents over fixed-model adaptation baselines.

AI systems can fail silently. The failure propagates through training loops, evaluation pipelines, and production monitoring stacks until downstream harm makes it visible. This paper introduces evaluation blindness: a measurement function M exhibits evaluation blindness with respect to failure class F when it produces readings indistinguishable from a healthy state while the system is actually failing, with no auxiliary signal flagging the gap. The problem surfaces at two lifecycle stages the literature has treated separately. At training time, reward models are gamed, importance-sampling corrections are silently miscalculated, and benchmark contamination inflates fine-tuning evaluations, all while loss curves look healthy and gradient updates proceed normally. At deployment time, monitoring fails to catch six classes of production failure, including an Operational category that is 100% silent by structural definition. We provide a formal detectability predicate unifying both stages. Four training-time case studies trace concrete breakdowns, including a real implementation bug in TRL PR #6594 where gradients are corrupted as loss decreases normally. A six-class taxonomy validated against 50 real-world incidents from court documents and regulatory filings finds that 53% of verifiable public failures were silent. A failure budget framework ties acceptable failure rates to use-case risk class. The implication is direct: measurement infrastructure is a correctness concern across the full AI lifecycle, not just at evaluation time. Data, code, and taxonomy schema are at https://github.com/priyanka25aug/llm-failure-taxonomy.

The ability of language models in RAG systems to selectively refuse to answer based on flawed context is critical for safety, yet remains a significant failure point. Our large-scale study reveals that even frontier models struggle in this setting, with refusal accuracy dropping below 50% on multi-document tasks, while exhibiting either dangerous overconfidence or overcaution. Static benchmarks fail to reliably evaluate this capability, as models exploit dataset-specific artifacts and memorize test instances. We introduce RefusalBench, a generative methodology that programmatically creates diagnostic test cases through controlled linguistic perturbation. Our framework employs 176 distinct perturbation strategies across six categories of informational uncertainty and three intensity levels. Evaluation of over 30 models uncovers systematic failure patterns: refusal comprises separable detection and categorization skills, and neither scale nor extended reasoning improves performance. We find that selective refusal is a trainable, alignment-sensitive capability, offering a clear path for improvement. We release two benchmarks -- RefusalBench-NQ (single document) and RefusalBench-GaRAGe (multi-document) -- and our complete generation framework to enable continued, dynamic evaluation of this critical capability.

AI systems rewrite information constantly: conversations become stored memories, documents become answers. The rewrite can keep a claim while washing away what made it checkable, who said it, how sure they were, when it held. We call that failure factwashing, and release factwash, an open-source write-time gate that catches it deterministically, with named flags and evidence rather than an LLM judge. Building it answers a practical question: when does a cheap check suffice, and when do you need a model? What decides is whether the property has a bounded surface-cue inventory. Explicit negation cues are close to enumerable, so a word list finishes and transfers, reaching 0.91 F1 on untuned text. Hedging and attribution have open-ended realizations, so vocabulary plateaus near half recall, and a one-question LLM witness recovers +17 and +15 points of cue-detection recall at equal precision. Deployed, that witness may only lower a verdict, so it buys precision rather than coverage. We measure cue detection on 105,596 independently annotated sentences. A blind-labelled corpus of memory writes then locates the failure: 55% of bad writes in conversational hearsay, 7% in business email (p < 0.001), so the first deployment question is not which detector to use but whether the failure occurs at all. On unmodified mem0 2.0.7, the gate flags 5 of 8 hedged-hearsay writes.

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%.

There is an increasing amount of research and commercial tools for automated test case generation using Large Language Models (LLMs). This paper critically examines whether recent LLM-based test generation tools, such as Codium CoverAgent and CoverUp, can effectively find bugs or unintentionally validate faulty code. Considering bugs are only exposed by failing test cases, we explore the question: can these tools truly achieve the intended objectives of software testing when their test oracles are designed to pass? Using real human-written buggy code as input, we evaluate these tools, showing how LLM-generated tests can fail to detect bugs and, more alarmingly, how their design can worsen the situation by validating bugs in the generated test suite and rejecting bug-revealing tests. These findings raise important questions about the validity of the design behind LLM-based test generation tools and their impact on software quality and test suite reliability.

Agentic coding assistants are increasingly given extra capabilities, such as browser based testing tools and design oriented system prompts, on the assumption that more capability yields better software. This study tested that assumption directly. Ninety independent agent runs built the same application, a real time retrospective board, from one detailed specification, each scored on a fixed 14 criterion functional rubric (42 point maximum) and a visual quality review. The runs spanned several model generations, two agent harnesses, two reasoning effort levels, a testing tool, and two design oriented prompts. Capability tier dominated: frontier models clustered near the ceiling while a low cost local model fell to 24 to 37 points. A criterion level analysis revealed what run totals conceal. Container deployment was the dominant defect, failing first try in 44 percent of runs, with its failure rate shifting sharply across model generations while mean totals moved less than a point. The testing tool raised cost by 42 to 68 percent without improving functional score or reliability, even on interface visible criteria. Raising reasoning effort from High to xHigh lifted first try perfect runs from 28 percent to 89 percent and cut corrective prompts about five fold, for 9 to 29 percent more cost. A design oriented prompt raised visual quality, 4.5 versus 3.0 on a 5 point scale, without lifting function, and a one paragraph paraphrase of its directive reproduced the entire lift. The practical lesson is to match the fix to the failure: most first run failures came from weak reasoning, which a stronger model or more effort prevents, not from visible flaws a checking tool would catch.