arXiv subjects

Baishakhi Ray

Publications and source records attributed to Baishakhi Ray.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Skeleton Coding: Program Structure as a Specification for Agents

Coding agents are typically provided end-to-end behavioral specifications that the code they produce should satisfy, such as tests and input--output examples. How many such specifications must a developer provide, and which ones, for the agent to produce the developer's intended program? We argue that this cannot be determined a priori, for it depends on the structure of the implementation, which is left to the agent to decide. An agent first commits to a structure---a decomposition into data types, modules, and functions---which fixes a class of candidate programs; behavioral specifications then select a program within that class. A set of tests that suffices for one structure may leave another badly underdetermined, requiring different edge cases or exponentially more examples. Since the structure is chosen by the agent, developers cannot ensure their specification is complete without reverse-engineering it from thousands of lines of generated code. To resolve this, we introduce Skeleton Coding, in which developers jointly specify the structure---in high-level, code-like format---alongside behavioral specifications. Theoretically, we model AI-assisted coding as a control problem, and show that skeletons can reduce exponentially the number of tests developers must supply to steer an agent toward an acceptable program. Empirically, across four models and three benchmarks, the best-performing skeleton specifications reduce mean test error by 48.4% relative to the best end-to-end behavioral specifications. Even when the agent can query a complete reference implementation, adding a skeleton reduces mean test error relatively by up to 27.0%. Skeletons also narrow the average gap between small and large models by about 52.4% while lowering implementation cost by 15--26x, and reduce code erosion by 24.7% on average.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

Do Coding Agents Understand Why Systems Crash---and Why They Don't?

Coding agents are increasingly capable of fixing real-world bugs, yet they still struggle with large systems codebases such as the Linux kernel. To understand why, we test how agents reason about execution in these codebases through crash reasoning: predicting from source code whether a given input crashes the system. A correct prediction alone, however, does not establish this ability, since it may come from merely spotting suspicious code. In this paper, we propose source interventions: we pair source trees that differ by a single commit, so that the same input crashes only one of them, and test whether agents predict crashes more often on the crashing tree. Experiments with four coding agents on SysRB, our dataset of 934 such pairs from Linux and OSS-Fuzz projects, yield three main findings. First, agents are biased toward predicting no crash: they rarely raise false alarms but miss many real crashes, and even the best agent misses over a quarter of them. Second, locating the code that determines the crash outcome is not enough: agents often misjudge its effect, especially when the crash occurs far from that code. Third, testing only on crashing code is misleading: agents that merely notice suspicious code predict crashes on both source trees, which would look like correct reasoning on the crashing tree alone. Together, these findings indicate that current coding agents cannot yet reliably reason about execution in complex systems codebases, and that paired evaluation is necessary to measure this ability.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

SWE-Spot: Building Small Repo-Experts with Repository-Centric Learning

The deployment of coding agents in privacy-sensitive and resource-constrained environments drives the demand for capable open-weight Small Language Models (SLMs). However, they suffer from a fundamental capability gap: unlike frontier large models, they lack the inference-time strong generalization to handle complicated, unfamiliar codebases. We identify that the prevailing Task-Centric Learning (TCL) approach, which scales exposure across disparate repositories, fails to address this limitation. In response, we propose Repository-Centric Learning (RCL), a shift that prioritizes vertical, single-repository depth over horizontal, single-task breadth for SLM training. To accomplish this depth, we design a four-unit Repository-Centric Experience, transforming static codebases into interactive learning signals, to train SWE-Spot-4B, a family of highly compact models built as repo-specialized experts. Under controlled comparisons with the same teacher and data budget, RCL consistently outperforms TCL across tasks, teachers, model scales, and programming languages. On seven target repositories, SWE-Spot-4B experts match or exceed existing open-weight models up to $8\times$ larger (e.g., CWM by Meta, Qwen3-Coder-30B) and surpass or match efficiency-focused commercial models (e.g., GPT-4.1-mini, GPT-5-nano) across multiple SWE tasks. Further analysis reveals that RCL yields higher training and inference efficiency, deep knowledge acquisition, and can scale to repository-cluster experts. Our work emphasizes that for building efficient intelligence, repository mastery is a distinct, necessary, and practical dimension that complements general coding capability.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

Cost-Efficient Theorem Proving via Agent Orchestration in Program Verification

Program verification establishes software correctness through machine-checkable proofs constructed in theorem provers. It's a guarantee especially valuable for code generated by large language models (LLMs), which is fluent but carries no assurance of correctness. Almost all existing provers, however, pursue pass rates alone at whatever sampling or search budget it takes, and overlook the success-vs-cost frontier; yet real software often carries hundreds of interdependent proof obligations, so what matters at scale is not whether one theorem can be proved, but how many can be proved economically. We introduce CoCo-Prover, which formalizes cost-efficient program proving as metalevel decision-making under cost, grounded on two-level proof graphs: an AND/OR proof hypergraph within each declaration is joined to a lemma-dependency graph across declarations; and at each step, it answers two questions: which open goals to select, and which actions to purchase on these goals. Selection stays symbolic as a topological pass over the proof graphs. Action choice is agent orchestration via metalevel decision-making: an agentic router treats every bounded specialist invocation as a separately priced, best-effort computation, matching heterogeneous specialist agents together with configurations, under evolved routing rules as evidence accumulates. On five program verification benchmarks in Lean 4 including function-level CLEVER, VERINA, and AlgoVeri, and repository-level NTP4VC and Vero, we show that CoCo-Prover achieves a better success-vs-cost frontier than baselines including frontier coding agents and state-of-the-art LLM-based provers: it achieves the best solve rate on every benchmark and up to 100% on two benchmarks. It also reduces cost by up to 30.9% compared to the strongest baseline with the strongest LLM in our evaluation.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

TestJack: Should you trust the results in coding benchmarks? Agentic Coding Benchmarks Auditing via Evaluator Evolution

Large language model (LLM) agents are rapidly reshaping software engineering, accompanied by an explosion of new code benchmarks. Yet nearly all existing benchmarks still rely on the same decades-old criterion: a solution is correct if it passes a fixed set of unit tests. Such tests are often insufficient: they check only part of what the task requires, so agents can reward hack them or silently miss required behavior while still passing every test. As a result, higher benchmark scores may partly reflect better adaptation to the evaluator rather than better problem solving. Existing works focus on static test augmentation: they strengthen each task's tests once, before any trial is seen, and thus overlook how real trials actually fail. We introduce TestJack, a scalable framework for evaluating patches beyond fixed tests. For each trial, TestJack generates tests targeting prompt requirements the patch may violate, retains only tests passed by the ground-truth patch, and re-examines any trial failures. Each confirmed failure is thus supported by a replayable test. To reduce evaluation cost, we also introduce a lightweight variant which audits a random sample of trials in depth and reuses the resulting tests across all trials for the same task. Across 6 frontier model backends and 5 benchmarks such as DeepSWE and SWE Marathon, we find that about 34.4% of the model trials currently judged correct violate the task requirements, lowering the overall resolution rate from 50.6% to 33.2%. Our results reveal a fundamental limitation of current coding-agent evaluation: as LLMs become better at optimizing against fixed evaluators, those evaluators themselves must become more adaptive.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

Adversarial Testing of Automated Program Repair Agents for Security Vulnerabilities

Software agents with Large Language Models (LLMs) are designed for Automated Program Repair (APR) tasks, raising the possibility that, in the near future, APR agents will fix bugs automatically without much human intervention. Can we trust an APR agent to produce both functionally correct and secure code in such situations? What if attackers target production APR agents with adversarial issues that seem benign but may influence the agents to produce correct but insecure code? In this paper, we took a first step towards answering these questions by conducting an empirical study. First, we created SWEADV, a benchmark of 750 adversarial issue descriptions constructed from 150 repair tasks in SWE-bench Verified. For each repair task, we created five adversarial issue descriptions, one for each attack type: command execution, deserialization, path traversal, denial of service, and weak hashing. Second, we evaluated mini_swe APR agents from three LLM backends on SWEADV: GPT-5-Mini, MiniMax-M2.5, and DeepSeek-R. We found that on average, adversarial issue descriptions can induce malicious behaviors with successful repair in 51.7% of cases. Third, we investigated whether typical detection mechanisms are sufficient to prevent such malicious patches from being accepted. Pre-repair detection with LLM-as-judge on the adversarial issue descriptions resulted in an average detection accuracy of only 62.3%. Post-repair detection on adversarial APR patches using static analysis tools and LLM-as-judge achieved average detection accuracies of only 39.4% and 55.4%, respectively. We conclude that autonomous APR agents cannot be trusted yet in production deployment, given their susceptibility to adversarial attacks.

cs.CR↗

arXiv2026

Skills for the future software profession: beyond agentic AI!

As coding agents are rapidly changing software engineering, a natural question is: what are the core skills needed by future software engineers? To identify where software engineering is headed and thus what skills will be needed, we summarize the results of two round-tables with researchers and industrial practitioners, held in 2026 in New York and Singapore. One key finding is that verification and validation is increasing in importance as agents handle implementation, as highlighted by anecdotes from the events. From our observations, we identify the skills developers need in the agentic era of development, with implications for training and educating future software engineers in coming years.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

Understanding Automated Program Repair Agents Through the Lens of Traceability: An Empirical Study

Automated Program Repair (APR) agents leverage large language models (LLMs) to autonomously diagnose and patch software bugs using planning, reasoning, and tools. Although these agents show strong performance on leaderboards such as SWE-bench, little is understood about how they take actions, where they fail, and how their behavior compares to human developers. In this paper, we present the first systematic analysis of these limitations using 5 state-of-the-art APR agents. We trace the full decision-making pipelines of the 5 APR agents across 500 real-world repair tasks, from issue description to patch validation. Our study reveals that, while agents excel at simple fixes, they struggle with logic-intensive bugs, often generating verbose, overfitted patches that pass existing test suites without solving the root cause. Test generation and regression test selection remain major bottlenecks, as agents fail to reproduce issues or run relevant regression tests. Moreover, many agents operate with primitive tooling (e.g. bash scripts) and do not have access to debuggers or program analysis tools. These findings highlight key limitations of current APR systems and motivate several directions for next-generation APR design, including but not limited to: (1) a shift-left approach emphasizing early, high-quality test generation and validation to reduce spurious fixes and improve semantic correctness; (2) richer, more integrated tool ecosystems; (3) diversified agent architectures that combine complementary strengths; and (4) benchmarks that prioritize semantic repair quality and test-generation fidelity over surface-level success metrics.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

TempoBench: Reasoning Execution Without Causal Attribution Is Just Simulation

Current training paradigms, optimized for long-horizon reasoning trace execution, have made Large Language Models (LLMs) excel at pattern matching and forward simulation of reasoning, but underperform at counterfactual causal understanding and reasoning. We introduce TempoBench, the first formally verifiable temporal benchmark that isolates counterfactual causal attribution over execution trajectories, and we show that LLMs categorically fall back to brute-force simulation-based reasoning to solve causal reasoning problems. Built from synthesized deterministic Mealy machines, TempoBench provides an infinitely scalable corpus of trajectory-based causal reasoning problems with controllable complexity and provably correct causal labels. Frontier models reach 96% step accuracy simulating a system forward, and fall to 32% when asked which inputs were necessary for an observed output, displaying what we call the SIM/MIN gap. Our findings show that LLMs cannot reliably identify minimal necessary causes, often confusing ``possible inputs'' with ``necessary causes,'' demonstrating an inability to understand which inputs were not needed. This failure is critical for deployment in causal inference tasks such as debugging, root cause analysis, and task planning where agents must use counterfactual reasoning to plan for specific desired outcomes. We show that training on TempoBench yields a targeted gain on causal benchmarks in open-source models while matching general-purpose, math, and code reasoning datasets on standard benchmarks. This indicates counterfactual causal reasoning is a learnable, architecturally distinct capability that sits on top of existing reasoning competencies.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

TRIM: Reducing AI-Generated CodeSlop via Agent Trajectory Minimization

Coding agents are increasingly used to accelerate code generation in many downstream tasks, such as fixing bugs, building applications, and prototyping. However, despite their value as coding assistants, agent-generated code tends to be larger and more verbose than the corresponding human-written implementation. In this work, we show that the cause lies in the agent's own search process: while iterating toward a passing solution, an agent accumulates speculative edits, abandoned hypotheses, and temporary changes that persist into the final patch. This may seem harmless for a single patch, but the problem compounds as agents take responsibility for ever-larger portions of a codebase-a codebase that was once minimal and well-maintained slowly accumulates redundancy faster than it can be cleaned up, drifting to a state that is harder to maintain. Given the magnitude of this problem, we take a step towards alleviating this issue. First, we formally define this phenomenon as CodeSlop-the residual and functionally unnecessary edits commonly seen in AI-generated code. We then introduce our algorithm TRIM (Trajectory-guided Redundancy Identification and Minimization). Rather than minimizing CodeSlop directly, TRIM instead minimizes agent trajectories. As we show empirically, this indirect technique of minimizing CodeSlop is highly effective: TRIM cuts CodeSlop by 17.9%-32.9% across agentic scaffolds, with negligible performance regression. TRIM is also highly efficient, requiring roughly half the validation cost of algorithmic baselines such as Delta Debugging.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

kAgent: An execution-guided crash resolution agent for the Linux kernel

Fuzzing frameworks like syzkaller have uncovered thousands of Linux kernel crashes, many of which are critical and security-sensitive. However, the ability to rapidly repair these crashes has not kept pace, particularly given the complexity and low-level nature of kernel code. Predominantly targeting user-space applications, existing LLM-based program repair techniques are not tailored to the unique challenges posed by kernel fuzz bugs-such as the absence of natural language bug reports, lack of exhaustive test oracles, and highly specialized crash artifacts. Thus, in this work, we first identify the prevalent bottlenecks that generic agents struggle with in complex systems such as the Linux kernel. Guided by these findings, we then build kAgent, a workflow-based agent inspired by how kernel developers diagnose and fix bugs, and kGym++, the co-designed toolstack supporting kAgent's requests. kAgent inspects relevant execution logs, generates execution-grounded natural language hypotheses, synthesizes candidate patches, validates patches through crash reproduction, and iteratively refines its reasoning. We ablate these agentic system features in kAgent and quantitatively analyze their contributions to the overall performance. We also report our experience on building agents for kernel crash repair. Although derived from this work on Linux, we note that our experience applies broadly to fuzzing-discovered bugs in complex systems software. We evaluate kAgent on kBenchSyz and show that it can repair up to 54.5% of crashes without localization and 65% with correct file hints. We also show kAgent's generalization on a few wild Syzkaller bugs, and how different patch types offer varying utility to developers who debug complex system software.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

Code Reasoning for Software Engineering Tasks: A Survey and A Call to Action

The rise of large language models (LLMs) has led to dramatic improvements across a wide range of natural language tasks. Their performance on certain tasks can be further enhanced by incorporating test-time reasoning techniques. These inference-time advances have been adopted into the code domain, enabling complex software engineering (SWE) tasks such as code generation, test generation and issue resolution. However, the impact of different reasoning techniques on code-centric SWE tasks has not been systematically explored. In this work, we survey code reasoning techniques that underpin these capabilities, with a focus on test-time compute and inference-time reasoning paradigms. We examine a variety of code-specific reasoning methods and progressively build up to SWE agents, which combine planning, tool use, and multi-step interaction. We also compare the impact of different techniques on coding tasks, highlighting their relative importance and outlining open challenges and future research directions. Across commonly used models and benchmarks, we find that approaches exploiting code-specific signals (e.g., structure and execution feedback) are frequently associated with improved performance, motivating a dedicated study of code reasoning beyond natural-language reasoning.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

Outrunning LLM Cutoffs: A Live Kernel Crash Resolution Benchmark for All

Repairing system crashes discovered by kernel fuzzers like Syzkaller is a critical yet underexplored challenge in software engineering. While recent works have introduced Large Language Model (LLM) based agents for Linux kernel crash-resolution, their evaluation benchmarks are usually static and thus, do not capture the evolving nature of the Linux kernel, and suffer from potential data contamination due to LLM knowledge cutoffs. To address the above problem, we present (i) Live-kBench, an evaluation framework for self-evolving benchmarks that continuously scrapes and evaluates agents on freshly discovered kernel bugs, and (ii) kEnv, an agent-agnostic standardized crash-resolution environment for kernel compilation, execution, and feedback. This design decouples agent workflows from heavy-weight execution, enabling fair and scalable comparison across diverse agent frameworks under identical conditions. To this end, we curate an inaugural dataset of 534 Linux kernel bugs and empirically demonstrate a significant performance gap, with agents achieving up to 25% higher equivalent patch rate on bugs fixed before the LLM knowledge cutoff. Using kEnv, we benchmark three state-of-the-art agents, showing that they resolve 74% of crashes on the first attempt (plausible patches); however only ~20% of generated patches closely match developer fixes. Additionally, exposing crash resolution feedback improves crash resolution rate by 29%. Live-kBench provides the community with an evaluation infrastructure for self-evolving benchmarks that is both time and attribute sensitive; complete with a public dashboard to track agent progress on Linux kernel bugs.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

Solving Zebra Puzzles Using Constraint-Guided Multi-Agent Systems

Prior research has enhanced the ability of Large Language Models (LLMs) to solve logic puzzles using techniques such as chain-of-thought prompting or introducing a symbolic representation. These frameworks are still usually insufficient to solve complicated logical problems, such as Zebra puzzles, due to the inherent complexity of translating natural language clues into logical statements. We introduce a multi-agent system, ZPS, that integrates LLMs with an off the shelf theorem prover. This system tackles the complex puzzle-solving task by breaking down the problem into smaller, manageable parts, generating SMT (Satisfiability Modulo Theories) code to solve them with a theorem prover, and using feedback between the agents to repeatedly improve their answers. We also introduce an automated grid puzzle grader to assess the correctness of our puzzle solutions and show that the automated grader is reliable by evaluating it in a user-study. Our approach shows improvement in all three LLMs we tested, with GPT-4 showing 166% improvement in the number of fully correct solutions.

cs.MA↗

arXiv2026

Trustworthy AI Software Engineers

With the rapid rise of AI coding agents, the fundamental premise of what it means to be a software engineer is in question. In this vision paper, we examine what it means for an AI agent to be considered a software engineer and then critically think about what makes such an agent trustworthy. Grounded in established definitions of SE (SE) and informed by recent research on agentic AI systems, we conceptualise AI software engineers as participants in human-AI SE teams composed of human software engineers and AI agents, and we distinguish trustworthiness as a key property of these systems and actors rather than a subjective human attitude. Extending on historical perspectives and emerging visions, we identify key dimensions that contribute to the trustworthiness of AI software engineers, spanning technical quality, transparency and accountability, epistemic humility, and societal and ethical alignment. Beyond defining these dimensions, we address a critical but underexplored challenge: how trustworthiness can be operationalised in practice. We therefore introduce the notion of evidence-centric inspection, arguing that developers should evaluate selective signals and justifications of trustworthiness rather than raw outputs, and we outline implications for rethinking verification, validation, and code review in human-AI SE teams.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

Coherence Collapse: Diagnosing Why Code Agents Fail After Reaching the Right Code

Code agents resolve 65-70% of SWE-bench Verified issues, but Pass@1 cannot tell us why the rest fail, and, as we show, capable-model failures are systematically misdiagnosed without trajectory data. We introduce TRAJEVAL, a training-free decomposition of agent trajectories into reference-patch-aligned search, read, and edit stages, and apply it across 16,758 trajectories spanning three architectures and seven models. The dominant failure of capable models is not localization: 60-69% of failures on SWE-Agent and OpenHands reach and edit the correct functions yet still produce incorrect patches, and the pattern persists for most models on the bash-only LiveSWEAgent. Within this Edit-Quality residual, we identify Coherence Collapse, where the agent reaches correct code and then overwrites or thrashes it, as the largest theme, replicating across SWE-bench Verified and the multilingual PolyBench Verified. In 5 cases, the agent produces a patch bit-identical to the gold reference mid-trajectory and destroys it later; an edit-commit checkpoint recovers all 5 against the SWE-bench Docker harness. A reference-free consensus-driven variant yields a directional +3.0 pp Pass@1 measurement on GPT-5 (p=0.08).

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

ScarfBench: A Benchmark for Cross-Framework Application Migration in Enterprise Java

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.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

CodeSense: a Real-World Benchmark and Dataset for Code Semantic Reasoning

Understanding and reasoning about code semantics is essential for enhancing code LLMs' abilities to solve real-world software engineering (SE) tasks. Although several code reasoning benchmarks exist, most rely on synthetic datasets or educational coding problems and focus on coarse-grained reasoning tasks such as input/output prediction, limiting their effectiveness in evaluating LLMs in practical SE contexts. To bridge this gap, we propose CodeSense, the first benchmark that makes available a spectrum of fine-grained code reasoning tasks concerned with the software engineering of real-world code. We collected Python, C and Java software projects from real-world repositories. We executed tests from these repositories, collected their execution traces, and constructed a ground truth dataset for fine-grained semantic reasoning tasks. We then performed comprehensive evaluations on state-of-the-art LLMs. Our results show a clear performance gap for the models to handle fine-grained reasoning tasks. Although prompting techniques such as chain-of-thought and in-context learning helped, the lack of code semantics in LLMs fundamentally limits models' capabilities of code reasoning. Besides dataset, benchmark and evaluation, our work produced an execution tracing framework and tool set that make it easy to collect ground truth for fine-grained SE reasoning tasks, offering a strong basis for future benchmark construction and model post training. Our code and data are located at https://codesense-bench.github.io/.

cs.SE↗