Program synthesis aims to automatically generate an executable program that conforms to the given specification. Recent advancements have demonstrated that deep neural methodologies and large-scale pretrained language models are highly proficient in capturing program semantics. For robot programming, prior works have facilitated program synthesis by incorporating global environments. However, the assumption of acquiring a comprehensive understanding of the entire environment is often excessively challenging to achieve.

The growth of Large Language Model (LLM) technology has raised expectations for automated coding. However, software engineering is more than coding and is concerned with activities including maintenance and evolution of a project. In this context, the concept of LLM agents has gained traction, which utilize LLMs as reasoning engines to invoke external tools autonomously. But is an LLM agent the same as an AI software engineer? In this paper, we seek to understand this question by developing a Unified Software Engineering agent or USEagent. Unlike existing work which builds specialized agents for specific software tasks such as testing, debugging, and repair, our goal is to build a unified agent which can orchestrate and handle multiple capabilities. This gives the agent the promise of handling complex scenarios in software development such as fixing an incomplete patch, adding new features, or taking over code written by others. We envision USEagent as the first draft of a future AI Software Engineer which can be a team member in future software development teams involving both AI and humans. To evaluate the efficacy of USEagent, we build a Unified Software Engineering bench (USEbench) comprising of myriad tasks such as coding, testing, and patching. USEbench is a judicious mixture of tasks from existing benchmarks such as SWE-bench, SWT-bench, and REPOCOD. In an evaluation on USEbench consisting of 1,271 repository-level software engineering tasks, USEagent shows improved efficacy compared to existing general agents such as OpenHands CodeActAgent. There exist gaps in the capabilities of USEagent for certain coding tasks, which provides hints on further developing the AI Software Engineer of the future.

Automated vulnerability patching is crucial for software security, and recent advancements in Large Language Models (LLMs) present promising capabilities for automating this task. However, existing research has primarily assessed LLMs using publicly disclosed vulnerabilities, leaving their effectiveness on related artificial vulnerabilities largely unexplored. In this study, we empirically evaluate the patching effectiveness and complementarity of several prominent LLMs, such as OpenAI's GPT variants, LLaMA, DeepSeek, and Mistral models, using both real and artificial vulnerabilities. Our evaluation employs Proof-of-Vulnerability (PoV) test execution to concretely assess whether LLM-generated source code successfully patches vulnerabilities. Our results reveal that LLMs patch real vulnerabilities more effectively compared to artificial ones. Additionally, our analysis reveals significant variability across LLMs in terms of overlapping (multiple LLMs patching the same vulnerabilities) and complementarity (vulnerabilities patched exclusively by a single LLM), emphasizing the importance of selecting appropriate LLMs for effective vulnerability patching.

Automated program repair (APR) has recently shifted toward large language models and agent-based systems, yet most systems rely on local snapshot context, overlooking repository history. Prior work shows that repository history helps repair single-line bugs, since the last commit touching the buggy line is often the bug-introducing one. In this paper, we investigate whether repository history can also improve agentic APR systems at scale, especially for complex multi-hunk bugs. We present HAFixAgent, a History-Aware Bug-Fixing Agent that injects blame-derived repository heuristics into its repair loop. A preliminary study of all 854 real-world bugs from Defects4J motivates our design, showing that bug-relevant history is both widely available and highly concentrated. Empirical comparison of HAFixAgent with two state-of-the-art baselines shows: (1) Effectiveness: HAFixAgent significantly improves over the agent-based baseline (by 212.3%) and the multi-hunk baseline (by 29.9%). (2) Efficiency: history does not significantly increase agent steps and keeps token costs comparable, with notably lower median costs for complex multi-file-multi-hunk bugs. (3) Practicality: combining different historical heuristics repairs more bugs, offering a clear cost-benefit trade-off. HAFixAgent offers a practical recipe for history-aware agentic APR: ground the agent in version control history, prioritize diff-based historical context, and integrate complementary heuristics when needed.

Today's pursuit of a single Large Language Model (LMM) for all software engineering tasks is resource-intensive and overlooks the potential benefits of complementarity, where different models contribute unique strengths. However, the degree to which coding LLMs complement each other and the best strategy for maximizing an ensemble's potential are unclear, leaving practitioners without a clear path to move beyond single-model systems. To address this gap, we empirically compare ten individual LLMs from five families, and three ensembles of these LLMs across three software engineering benchmarks covering code generation and program repair. We assess the complementarity between models and the performance gap between the best individual model and the ensembles. Next, we evaluate various selection heuristics to identify correct solutions from an ensemble's candidate pool. We find that the theoretical upperbound for an ensemble's performance can be 83% above the best single model. Our results show that consensus-based strategies for selecting solutions fall into a "popularity trap," amplifying common but incorrect outputs. In contrast, a diversity-based strategy realizes up to 95% of this theoretical potential, and proves effective even in small two-model ensembles, enabling a cost-efficient way to enhance performance by leveraging multiple LLMs.

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) and other automated techniques have been increasingly used to support software developers by generating software artifacts such as code snippets, patches, and comments. However, accurately assessing the correctness of these generated artifacts remains a significant challenge. On one hand, human evaluation provides high accuracy but is labor-intensive and lacks scalability. On the other hand, many automatic evaluation metrics are scalable and require minimal human effort, but they often fail to accurately reflect the actual correctness of generated software artifacts. In this paper, we present SE-Jury, the first evaluation metric for LLM-as-Ensemble-Judge specifically designed to accurately assess the correctness of generated software artifacts. SE-Jury first defines five distinct evaluation strategies, each implemented by an independent judge. A dynamic team selection mechanism then identifies the most appropriate subset of judges as a team to produce a final correctness score through ensembling. We evaluate SE-Jury across a diverse set of software engineering (SE) benchmarks that span three popular SE tasks: code generation, automated program repair, and code summarization. Results demonstrate that SE-Jury consistently achieves a higher correlation with human judgments, with improvements ranging from 29.6% to 140.8% over existing automatic metrics. SE-Jury reaches agreement levels with human annotators that are close to inter-annotator agreement in code generation and program repair. These findings underscore SE-Jury's potential as a scalable and reliable alternative to human evaluation in these SE tasks.

Large Language Model (LLM)-based agents are increasingly employed to automate complex software engineering tasks, such as program repair and issue resolution. These agents operate by autonomously generating natural language thoughts, invoking external tools, and iteratively refining their solutions. Despite their widespread adoption, the internal decision-making processes of these agents remain largely unexplored, limiting our understanding of their operational dynamics and failure modes. In this paper, we present a large-scale empirical study of the thought-action-result trajectories of three state-of-the-art LLM-based agents: RepairAgent, AutoCodeRover, and OpenHands. We unify their interaction logs into a common format, capturing 120 trajectories and 2,822 LLM interactions focused on program repair and issue resolution. Our study combines quantitative analyses of structural properties, action patterns, and token usage with qualitative assessments of reasoning coherence and feedback integration. We identify key trajectory characteristics, such as iteration counts and token consumption, recurring action sequences, and the semantic coherence of thoughts, actions, and their results. Our findings reveal behavioral motifs and anti-patterns that distinguish successful from failed executions, providing actionable insights for improving agent design, including prompting strategies, failure diagnosis, and anti-pattern detection. We release our dataset and annotation framework to support further research on transparent and robust autonomous software engineering agents.