LLM-based agent systems are emerging as a new software paradigm and have been widely adopted across diverse domains such as medicine, robotics, and programming. However, maintaining these systems requires substantial effort, as they are inevitably prone to bugs and continually evolve to meet changing external requirements. Therefore, automatically resolving agent issues (i.e., bug reports or feature requests) is a crucial and challenging task. While recent software engineering (SE) agents (e.g., SWE-agent) have shown promise in addressing issues in traditional software systems, it remains unclear how effectively they can resolve real-world issues in agent systems, which differ significantly from traditional software. To fill this gap, we first manually analyze 201 real-world agent issues and identify common categories of agent issues. We then spend 500 person-hours constructing AGENTISSUE-BENCH, a reproducible benchmark comprising 50 agent issue resolution tasks (each with an executable environment and failure-triggering tests). We further evaluate state-of-the-art SE agents on AGENTISSUE-BENCH and reveal their limited effectiveness (i.e., with only 0.67% - 4.67% resolution rates). These results underscore the unique challenges of maintaining agent systems compared to traditional software, highlighting the need for further research to develop advanced SE agents for resolving agent issues.

LLM-based agents have shown promising capabilities in a growing range of software engineering (SWE) tasks. However, advancing this field faces two critical challenges. First, high-quality training data is scarce, especially data that reflects real-world SWE scenarios, where agents must interact with development environments, execute code and adapt behavior based on the outcomes of their actions. Existing datasets are either limited to one-shot code generation or comprise small, manually curated collections of interactive tasks, lacking both scale and diversity. Second, the lack of fresh interactive SWE tasks affects evaluation of rapidly improving models, as static benchmarks quickly become outdated due to contamination issues. To address these limitations, we introduce a novel, automated, and scalable pipeline to continuously extract real-world interactive SWE tasks from diverse GitHub repositories. Using this pipeline, we construct SWE-rebench, a public dataset comprising over 21,000 interactive Python-based SWE tasks, suitable for reinforcement learning of SWE agents at scale. Additionally, we use continuous supply of fresh tasks collected using SWE-rebench methodology to build a contamination-free benchmark for agentic software engineering. We compare results of various LLMs on this benchmark to results on SWE-bench Verified and show that performance of some language models might be inflated due to contamination issues.

As large language models (LLMs) become increasingly capable and widely adopted, benchmarks play a central role in assessing their practical utility. For example, SWE-Bench Verified has emerged as a critical benchmark for evaluating LLMs' software engineering abilities, particularly their aptitude for resolving real-world GitHub issues. Recent LLMs show impressive performance on SWE-Bench, leading to optimism about their capacity for complex coding tasks. However, current evaluation protocols may overstate these models' true capabilities. It is crucial to distinguish LLMs' generalizable problem-solving ability and other learned artifacts. In this work, we introduce two diagnostic tasks: file path identification from issue descriptions alone and ground truth function reproduction with only the current file context and issue description to probe models' underlying knowledge. We present empirical evidence that performance gains on SWE-Bench-Verified may be partially driven by memorization rather than genuine problem-solving. We show that state-of-the-art models achieve up to 76% accuracy in identifying buggy file paths using only issue descriptions, without access to repository structure. This performance is merely up to 53% on tasks from repositories not included in SWE-Bench, pointing to possible data contamination or memorization. Similar patterns are also observed for the function reproduction task, where the verbatim similarity is much higher on SWE-Bench Verified than on other similar coding benchmarks (up to 35% consecutive 5-gram accuracy on SWE-Bench Verified and Full, but only up to 18% for tasks in other benchmarks). These findings raise concerns about the validity of existing results and underscore the need for more robust, contamination-resistant benchmarks to reliably evaluate LLMs' coding abilities.

Motivated by the success of general-purpose large language models (LLMs) in software patching, recent works started to train specialized patching models. Most works trained one model to handle the end-to-end patching pipeline (including issue localization, patch generation, and patch validation). However, it is hard for a small model to handle all tasks, as different sub-tasks have different workflows and require different expertise. As such, by using a 70 billion model, SOTA methods can only reach up to 41% resolved rate on SWE-bench-Verified. Motivated by the collaborative nature, we propose Co-PatcheR, the first collaborative patching system with small and specialized reasoning models for individual components. Our key technique novelties are the specific task designs and training recipes. First, we train a model for localization and patch generation. Our localization pinpoints the suspicious lines through a two-step procedure, and our generation combines patch generation and critique. We then propose a hybrid patch validation that includes two models for crafting issue-reproducing test cases with and without assertions and judging patch correctness, followed by a majority vote-based patch selection. Through extensive evaluation, we show that Co-PatcheR achieves 46% resolved rate on SWE-bench-Verified with only 3 x 14B models. This makes Co-PatcheR the best patcher with specialized models, requiring the least training resources and the smallest models. We conduct a comprehensive ablation study to validate our recipes, as well as our choice of training data number, model size, and testing-phase scaling strategy.

LLM-based agents have shown promising capabilities in a growing range of software engineering (SWE) tasks. However, advancing this field faces two critical challenges. First, high-quality training data is scarce, especially data that reflects real-world SWE scenarios, where agents must interact with development environments, execute code and adapt behavior based on the outcomes of their actions. Existing datasets are either limited to one-shot code generation or comprise small, manually curated collections of interactive tasks, lacking both scale and diversity. Second, the lack of fresh interactive SWE tasks affects evaluation of rapidly improving models, as static benchmarks quickly become outdated due to contamination issues. To address these limitations, we introduce a novel, automated, and scalable pipeline to continuously extract real-world interactive SWE tasks from diverse GitHub repositories. Using this pipeline, we construct SWE-rebench, a public dataset comprising over 21,000 interactive Python-based SWE tasks, suitable for reinforcement learning of SWE agents at scale. Additionally, we use continuous supply of fresh tasks collected using SWE-rebench methodology to build a contamination-free benchmark for agentic software engineering. We compare results of various LLMs on this benchmark to results on SWE-bench Verified and show that performance of some language models might be inflated due to contamination issues.

LLM-based agent systems are emerging as a new software paradigm and have been widely adopted across diverse domains such as medicine, robotics, and programming. However, maintaining these systems requires substantial effort, as they are inevitably prone to bugs and continually evolve to meet changing external requirements. Therefore, automatically resolving agent issues (i.e., bug reports or feature requests) is a crucial and challenging task. While recent software engineering (SE) agents (e.g., SWE-agent) have shown promise in addressing issues in traditional software systems, it remains unclear how effectively they can resolve real-world issues in agent systems, which differ significantly from traditional software. To fill this gap, we first manually analyze 201 real-world agent issues and identify common categories of agent issues. We then spend 500 person-hours constructing AgentIssue-Bench, a reproducible benchmark comprising 50 agent issue resolution tasks (each with an executable environment and failure-triggering tests). We further evaluate state-of-the-art SE agents on AgentIssue-Bench and reveal their limited effectiveness (i.e., with only 0.67% - 4.67% resolution rates). These results underscore the unique challenges of maintaining agent systems compared to traditional software, highlighting the need for further research to develop advanced SE agents for resolving agent issues. Data and code are available at https://github.com/alfin06/AgentIssue-Bench.

We propose utilizing fast and slow thinking to enhance the capabilities of large language model-based agents on complex tasks such as program repair. In particular, we design an adaptive program repair method based on issue description response, called SIADAFIX. The proposed method utilizes slow thinking bug fix agent to complete complex program repair tasks, and employs fast thinking workflow decision components to optimize and classify issue descriptions, using issue description response results to guide the orchestration of bug fix agent workflows. SIADAFIX adaptively selects three repair modes, i.e., easy, middle and hard mode, based on problem complexity. It employs fast generalization for simple problems and test-time scaling techniques for complex problems. Experimental results on the SWE-bench Lite show that the proposed method achieves 60.67% pass@1 performance using the Claude-4 Sonnet model, reaching state-of-the-art levels among all open-source methods. SIADAFIX effectively balances repair efficiency and accuracy, providing new insights for automated program repair. Our code is available at https://github.com/liauto-siada/siada-cli.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have recently shown strong potential in automatic program repair (APR), especially in repository-level settings where the goal is to generate patches based on natural language issue descriptions, large codebases, and regression tests. However, despite their promise, current LLM-based APR techniques often struggle to produce correct fixes due to limited understanding of code context and over-reliance on incomplete test suites. As a result, they frequently generate Draft Patches-partially correct patches that either incompletely address the bug or overfit to the test cases. In this work, we propose a novel patch refinement framework, Refine, that systematically transforms Draft Patches into correct ones. Refine addresses three key challenges: disambiguating vague issue and code context, diversifying patch candidates through test-time scaling, and aggregating partial fixes via an LLM-powered code review process. We implement Refine as a general refinement module that can be integrated into both open-agent-based and workflow-based APR systems. Our evaluation on the SWE-Bench Lite benchmark shows that Refine achieves state-of-the-art results among workflow-based approaches and approaches the best-known performance across all APR categories. Specifically, Refine boosts AutoCodeRover's performance by 14.67%, achieving a score of 51.67% and surpassing all prior baselines. On SWE-Bench Verified, Refine improves the resolution rate by 12.2%, and when integrated across multiple APR systems, it yields an average improvement of 14%-demonstrating its broad effectiveness and generalizability. These results highlight the effectiveness of refinement as a missing component in current APR pipelines and the potential of agentic collaboration in closing the gap between near-correct and correct patches. We also open source our code.

The rapid progress in Automated Program Repair (APR) has been driven by advances in AI, particularly large language models (LLMs) and agent-based systems. SWE-Bench is a recent benchmark designed to evaluate LLM-based repair systems using real issues and pull requests mined from 12 popular open-source Python repositories. Its public leaderboards -- SWE-Bench Lite and SWE-Bench Verified -- have become central platforms for tracking progress and comparing solutions. However, because the submission process does not require detailed documentation, the architectural design and origin of many solutions remain unclear. In this paper, we present the first comprehensive study of all submissions to the SWE-Bench Lite (79 entries) and Verified (99 entries) leaderboards, analyzing 80 unique approaches across dimensions such as submitter type, product availability, LLM usage, and system architecture. Our findings reveal the dominance of proprietary LLMs (especially Claude 3.5), the presence of both agentic and non-agentic designs, and a contributor base spanning from individual developers to large tech companies.

Issue resolution has made remarkable progress thanks to the advanced reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs). Recently, agent-based frameworks such as SWE-agent have further advanced this progress by enabling autonomous, tool-using agents to tackle complex software engineering tasks. While existing agent-based issue resolution approaches are primarily based on agents' independent explorations, they often get stuck in local solutions and fail to identify issue patterns that span across different parts of the codebase. To address this limitation, we propose SWE-Debate, a competitive multi-agent debate framework that encourages diverse reasoning paths and achieves more consolidated issue localization. SWE-Debate first creates multiple fault propagation traces as localization proposals by traversing a code dependency graph. Then, it organizes a three-round debate among specialized agents, each embodying distinct reasoning perspectives along the fault propagation trace. This structured competition enables agents to collaboratively converge on a consolidated fix plan. Finally, this consolidated fix plan is integrated into an MCTS-based code modification agent for patch generation. Experiments on the SWE-bench benchmark show that SWE-Debate achieves new state-of-the-art results in open-source agent frameworks and outperforms baselines by a large margin.