arXiv:2602.20048v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Modern code intelligence agents operate in contexts exceeding 1 million tokens--far beyond the scale where humans manually locate relevant files. Yet agents consistently fail to discover architecturally critical files when solving real-world coding tasks. We identify the Navigation Paradox: agents perform poorly not due to context limits, but because navigation and retrieval are fundamentally distinct problems. Through 258 automated trials across 30 benchmark tasks on a production FastAPI repository, we demonstrate that graph-based structural navigation via CodeCompass--a Model Context Protocol server exposing dependency graphs--achieves 99.4% task completion on hidden-dependency tasks, a 23.2 percentage-point improvement over vanilla agents (76.2%) and 21.2 points over BM25 retrieval (78.2%).However, we uncover a critical adoption gap: 58% of trials with graph access made zero tool calls, and agents required explicit prompt engineering to adopt the tool consistently. Our findings reveal that the bottleneck is not tool availability but behavioral alignment--agents must be explicitly guided to leverage structural context over lexical heuristics. We contribute: (1) a task taxonomy distinguishing semantic-search, structural, and hidden-dependency scenarios; (2) empirical evidence that graph navigation outperforms retrieval when dependencies lack lexical overlap; and (3) open-source infrastructure for reproducible evaluation of navigation tools.

arXiv:2602.18492v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are now good enough at coding that developers can describe intent in plain language and let the tool produce the first code draft, a workflow increasingly built into tools like GitHub Copilot, Cursor, and Replit. What is missing is a reliable way to tell which model written queries are safe to accept without sending everything to a human. We study the application of an LLM jury to run this review step. We first benchmark 15 open models on 82 MySQL text to SQL tasks using an execution grounded protocol to get a clean baseline of which models are strong. From the six best models we build unanimous committees of sizes 1 through 6 that see the prompt, schema, and candidate SQL and accept it only when every member says it is correct. This rule matches safety first deployments where false accepts are more costly than false rejects. We measure true positive rate, false positive rate and Youden J and we also look at committees per generator. Our results show that single model judges are uneven, that small unanimous committees of strong models can cut false accepts while still passing many good queries, and that the exact committee composition matters significantly.

arXiv:2602.18548v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Design-to-code translates high-fidelity UI designs into executable front-end implementations, but progress remains hard to compare due to inconsistent datasets, toolchains, and evaluation protocols. We introduce 1D-Bench, a benchmark grounded in real e-commerce workflows, where each instance provides a reference rendering and an exported intermediate representation that may contain extraction errors. 1D is short for one day, representing the efficient completion of design-to-code tasks in less than one day. Models take both as input, using the intermediate representation as structural cues while being evaluated against the reference rendering, which tests robustness to intermediate representation defects rather than literal adherence. 1D-Bench requires generating an executable React codebase under a fixed toolchain with an explicit component hierarchy, and defines a multi-round setting in which models iteratively apply component-level edits using execution feedback. Experiments on commercial and open-weight multimodal models show that iterative editing generally improves final performance by increasing rendering success and often improving visual similarity. We further conduct a pilot study on post-training with synthetic repair trajectories and reinforcement learning based editing, and observe limited and unstable gains that may stem from sparse terminal rewards and high-variance file-level updates.

arXiv:2602.18571v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: While significant progress has been made in automating various aspects of software development through coding agents, there is still significant room for improvement in their bug fixing capabilities. Debugging and investigation of runtime behavior remains largely a manual, developer-driven process. Popular coding agents typically rely on either static analysis of the code or iterative test-fix cycles, which is akin to trial and error debugging. We posit that there is a wealth of rich runtime information that developers routinely access while debugging code, which agents are currently deprived of due to design limitations. Despite how prevalent debuggers are in modern IDEs and command-line tools, they have surprisingly not made their way into coding agents. In this work, we introduce Debug2Fix, a novel framework that incorporates interactive debugging as a core component of a software engineering agent via a subagent architecture. We incorporate debuggers for Java and Python into our agent framework and evaluate against GitBug-Java and SWE-Bench-Live and achieve >20% improvement in performance compared to the baseline for certain models. Furthermore, using our framework, we're able to make weaker models like GPT-5 and Claude Haiku 4.5 match or exceed the performances of stronger models like Claude Sonnet 4.5, showing that better tool design is often just as important as switching to a more expensive model. Finally, we conduct systematic ablations demonstrating the importance of both the subagent architecture and debugger integration.

arXiv:2602.18800v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: It is now common practice in software development for large language models (LLMs) to be used to generate program code. It is desirable to evaluate the robustness of LLMs for this usage. This paper is concerned in particular with how sensitive LLMs are to variations in descriptions of the coding tasks. However, existing techniques for evaluating this robustness are unsuitable for code generation because the input data space of natural language descriptions is discrete. To address this problem, we propose a robustness evaluation method called scenario domain analysis, which aims to find the expected minimal change in the natural language descriptions of coding tasks that would cause the LLMs to produce incorrect outputs. We have formally proved the theoretical properties of the method and also conducted extensive experiments to evaluate the robustness of four state-of-the-art art LLMs: Gemini-pro, Codex, Llamma2 and Falcon 7B, and have found that we are able to rank these with confidence from best to worst. Moreover, we have also studied how robustness varies in different scenarios, including the variations with the topic of the coding task and with the complexity of its sample solution, and found that robustness is lower for more complex tasks and also lower for more advanced topics, such as multi-threading and data structures.

arXiv:2602.19441v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Autonomous coding agents increasingly contribute to software development by submitting pull requests on GitHub; yet, little is known about how these contributions integrate into human-driven review workflows. We present a large empirical study of agent-authored pull requests using the public AIDev dataset, examining integration outcomes, resolution speed, and review-time collaboration signals. Using logistic regression with repository-clustered standard errors, we find that reviewer engagement has the strongest correlation with successful integration, whereas larger change sizes and coordination-disrupting actions, such as force pushes, are associated with a lower likelihood of merging. In contrast, iteration intensity alone provides limited explanatory power once collaboration signals are considered. A qualitative analysis further shows that successful integration occurs when agents engage in actionable review loops that converge toward reviewer expectations. Overall, our results highlight that the effective integration of agent-authored pull requests depends not only on code quality but also on alignment with established review and coordination practices.

arXiv:2602.19718v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The rapid adoption of Generative AI (GenAI) in the software development life cycle (SDLC) increases computational demand, which can raise the carbon footprint of development activities. At the same time, organizations are increasingly embedding governance mechanisms into GenAI-assisted development to support trust, transparency, and accountability. However, these governance mechanisms introduce additional computational workloads, including repeated inference, regeneration cycles, and expanded validation pipelines, increasing energy use and the carbon footprint of GenAI-assisted development. This paper proposes Carbon-Aware Governance Gates (CAGG), an architectural extension that embeds carbon budgets, energy provenance, and sustainability-aware validation orchestration into human-AI governance layers. CAGG comprises three components: (i) an Energy and Carbon Provenance Ledger, (ii) a Carbon Budget Manager, and (iii) a Green Validation Orchestrator, operationalized through governance policies and reusable design patterns.

arXiv:2602.19843v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: As LLM-based Multi-Agent Systems (MAS) are increasingly deployed for complex tasks, ensuring their reliability has become a pressing challenge. Since MAS coordinate through unstructured natural language rather than rigid protocols, they are prone to semantic failures (e.g., hallucinations, misinterpreted instructions, and reasoning drift) that propagate silently without raising runtime exceptions. Prevailing evaluation approaches, which measure only end-to-end task success, offer limited insight into how these failures arise or how effectively agents recover from them. To bridge this gap, we propose MAS-FIRE, a systematic framework for fault injection and reliability evaluation of MAS. We define a taxonomy of 15 fault types covering intra-agent cognitive errors and inter-agent coordination failures, and inject them via three non-invasive mechanisms: prompt modification, response rewriting, and message routing manipulation. Applying MAS-FIRE to three representative MAS architectures, we uncover a rich set of fault-tolerant behaviors that we organize into four tiers: mechanism, rule, prompt, and reasoning. This tiered view enables fine-grained diagnosis of where and why systems succeed or fail. Our findings reveal that stronger foundation models do not uniformly improve robustness. We further show that architectural topology plays an equally decisive role, with iterative, closed-loop designs neutralizing over 40% of faults that cause catastrophic collapse in linear workflows. MAS-FIRE provides the process-level observability and actionable guidance needed to systematically improve multi-agent systems.

arXiv:2602.19844v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: LLM-enabled applications are rapidly reshaping the software ecosystem by using large language models as core reasoning components for complex task execution. This paradigm shift, however, introduces fundamentally new reliability challenges and significantly expands the security attack surface, due to the non-deterministic, learning-driven, and difficult-to-verify nature of LLM behavior. In light of these emerging and unavoidable safety challenges, we argue that such risks should be treated as expected operational conditions rather than exceptional events, necessitating a dedicated incident-response perspective. Consequently, the primary barrier to trustworthy deployment is not further improving model capability but establishing system-level threat monitoring mechanisms that can detect and contextualize security-relevant anomalies after deployment -- an aspect largely underexplored beyond testing or guardrail-based defenses. Accordingly, this position paper advocates systematic and comprehensive monitoring of security threats in LLM-enabled applications as a prerequisite for reliable operation and a foundation for dedicated incident-response frameworks.

arXiv:2511.02780v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Smart contracts operate in a highly adversarial environment, where vulnerabilities can lead to substantial financial losses. Thus, smart contracts are subject to security audits. In auditing, proof-of-concept (PoC) exploits play a critical role by demonstrating to the stakeholders that the reported vulnerabilities are genuine, reproducible, and actionable. However, manually creating PoCs is time-consuming, error-prone, and often constrained by tight audit schedules. We introduce PoCo, an agentic framework that automatically generates executable PoC exploits from natural-language vulnerability descriptions written by auditors. PoCo autonomously generates PoC exploits in an agentic manner by interacting with a set of codeexecution tools in a Reason-Act-Observe loop. It produces fully executable exploits compatible with the Foundry testing framework, ready for integration into audit reports and other security tools. We evaluate PoCo on a dataset of 23 real-world vulnerability reports. PoCo consistently outperforms the Zero-shot and Workflow baselines, generating well-formed and logically correct PoCs. Our results demonstrate that agentic frameworks can significantly reduce the effort required for high-quality PoCs in smart contract audits. Our contribution provides actionable knowledge for the smart contract security community.