Is Your Automated Software Engineer Trustworthy?

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2506.17812v1
• Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2025 20:56:20 GMT
• Title: Is Your Automated Software Engineer Trustworthy?
• Abstract summary: Large Language Models (LLMs) are being increasingly used in software engineering tasks.<n>LLMs respond to every issue and generate a patch for every case, even when the input is vague or their own output is incorrect.<n>This leads to unreliable behaviour, such as hallucinated code changes or responses based on vague issue reports.<n>We introduce BouncerBench, a benchmark that evaluates whether LLM-based software agents can refuse to act when inputs are ill-defined.
• Score: 0.850206009406913
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are being increasingly used in software engineering tasks, with an increased focus on bug report resolution over the past year. However, most proposed systems fail to properly handle uncertain or incorrect inputs and outputs. Existing LLM-based tools and coding agents respond to every issue and generate a patch for every case, even when the input is vague or their own output is incorrect. There are no mechanisms in place to abstain when confidence is low. This leads to unreliable behaviour, such as hallucinated code changes or responses based on vague issue reports. We introduce BouncerBench, a benchmark that evaluates whether LLM-based software agents can refuse to act when inputs are ill-defined or refuse to respond when their own outputs are likely to be incorrect. Unlike prior benchmarks that implicitly incentivize models to generate responses even when uncertain, BouncerBench aims to improve precision by targeting two overlooked failure points: (1) vague or underspecified issue descriptions in tickets and (2) logically or functionally incorrect code patches created by the system. It measures whether proposed systems can distinguish actionable issues from vague tickets and valid patches from untrustworthy ones. We also implement a basic input and output bouncer, evaluating how well current LLMs can abstain when needed. Our results show that most models fail to abstain from underspecified inputs or incorrect outputs. Hence, we conclude that there is significant room for improvement before LLMs can be trusted to make correct decisions and recommendations in real-world software engineering workflows. BouncerBench provides a first step toward evaluating and building more cautious, trustworthy code agents. The replication package, dataset, and leaderboard can be found at bouncerbench.com

Related papers

• LLM-as-a-Verifier: A General-Purpose Verification Framework [74.40111651545979]
  We introduce LLM-as-a-Verifier, a general-purpose verification framework.<n>It provides fine-grained feedback for agentic tasks without requiring additional training.<n>It achieves state-of-the-art performance on several benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-06T17:59:35Z)
• Are LLMs Reliable Code Reviewers? Systematic Overcorrection in Requirement Conformance Judgement [8.059802912761919]
  We uncover a systematic failure of large language models (LLMs) in matching code to natural language requirements.<n>More detailed prompt design, particularly with those requiring explanations and proposed corrections, leads to higher misjudgment rates.<n>We propose a Fix-guided Verification Filter that treats the model proposed fix as executable counterfactual evidence.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-28T08:35:25Z)
• Reasoning with Confidence: Efficient Verification of LLM Reasoning Steps via Uncertainty Heads [104.9566359759396]
  We propose a lightweight alternative for step-level reasoning verification based on data-driven uncertainty scores.<n>Our findings suggest that the internal states of LLMs encode their uncertainty and can serve as reliable signals for reasoning verification.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-09T03:38:29Z)
• ImpossibleBench: Measuring LLMs' Propensity of Exploiting Test Cases [58.411135609139855]
  "Shortcuts" to complete tasks pose significant risks for reliable assessment and deployment of large language models.<n>We introduce ImpossibleBench, a benchmark framework that measures LLM agents' propensity to exploit test cases.<n>As a practical framework, ImpossibleBench is not just an evaluation but a versatile tool.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-23T06:58:32Z)
• Red Teaming Program Repair Agents: When Correct Patches can Hide Vulnerabilities [22.02073334787359]
  We propose SWExploit, which generates adversarial issue statements to make APR agents produce patches that are functionally correct yet vulnerable.<n>Based on our evaluation, we are the first to challenge the traditional assumption that a patch passing all tests is inherently reliable and secure.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-30T07:38:57Z)
• Where LLM Agents Fail and How They can Learn From Failures [62.196870049524364]
  Large Language Model (LLM) agents have shown promise in solving complex, multi-step tasks.<n>They amplify vulnerability to cascading failures, where a single root-cause error propagates through subsequent decisions.<n>Current systems lack a framework that can comprehensively understand agent error in a modular and systemic way.<n>We introduce the AgentErrorTaxonomy, a modular classification of failure modes spanning memory, reflection, planning, action, and system-level operations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-29T18:20:27Z)
• Probing Pre-trained Language Models on Code Changes: Insights from ReDef, a High-Confidence Just-in-Time Defect Prediction Dataset [0.0]
  We present ReDef, a high-confidence benchmark of function-level modifications curated from 22 large-scale C/C++ projects.<n>Defective cases are anchored by revert commits, while clean cases are validated through post-hoc history checks.<n>This pipeline yields 3,164 defective and 10,268 clean modifications, offering substantially more reliable labels than prior existing resources.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-11T07:07:11Z)
• CompassVerifier: A Unified and Robust Verifier for LLMs Evaluation and Outcome Reward [50.97588334916863]
  We develop CompassVerifier, an accurate and robust lightweight verifier model for evaluation and outcome reward.<n>It demonstrates multi-domain competency spanning math, knowledge, and diverse reasoning tasks, with the capability to process various answer types.<n>We introduce VerifierBench benchmark comprising model outputs collected from multiple data sources, augmented through manual analysis of metaerror patterns to enhance CompassVerifier.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-05T17:55:24Z)
• Repairing vulnerabilities without invisible hands. A differentiated replication study on LLMs [5.10123605644148]
  Automated Vulnerability Repair (AVR) is a fast-growing branch of program repair.<n>Recent studies show that large language models (LLMs) outperform traditional techniques.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-28T16:39:16Z)
• Do AI models help produce verified bug fixes? [62.985237003585674]
  Large Language Models are used to produce corrections to software bugs.<n>This paper investigates how programmers use Large Language Models to complement their own skills.<n>The results are a first step towards a proper role for AI and LLMs in providing guaranteed-correct fixes to program bugs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-21T17:30:16Z)
• Towards Automated Formal Verification of Backend Systems with LLMs [9.66648456498893]
  We propose a novel framework that leverages functional programming and type systems to translate backend code into formal Lean representations.<n>Our pipeline automatically generates theorems that specify the intended behavior of APIs and database operations, and uses LLM-based provers to verify them.<n>We evaluate our method on realistic backend systems and find that it can formally verify over 50% of the test requirements, which suggests that half of a testing engineer's workload can be automated.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-13T16:49:37Z)
• Are You Getting What You Pay For? Auditing Model Substitution in LLM APIs [60.881609323604685]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) accessed via black-box APIs introduce a trust challenge.<n>Users pay for services based on advertised model capabilities.<n> providers may covertly substitute the specified model with a cheaper, lower-quality alternative to reduce operational costs.<n>This lack of transparency undermines fairness, erodes trust, and complicates reliable benchmarking.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-07T03:57:41Z)
• Know Your Mistakes: Towards Preventing Overreliance on Task-Oriented Conversational AI Through Accountability Modeling [9.305763502526833]
  We propose an accountability model for task-oriented dialogue agents to address user overreliance via friction turns.<n>Our empirical findings demonstrate that the proposed approach not only enables reliable estimation of AI agent errors but also guides the decoder in generating more accurate actions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-17T17:40:12Z)
• Improving LLM Reasoning through Scaling Inference Computation with Collaborative Verification [52.095460362197336]
  Large language models (LLMs) struggle with consistent and accurate reasoning. LLMs are trained primarily on correct solutions, reducing their ability to detect and learn from errors. We propose a novel collaborative method integrating Chain-of-Thought (CoT) and Program-of-Thought (PoT) solutions for verification.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-05T05:21:48Z)
• SpecRover: Code Intent Extraction via LLMs [7.742980618437681]
  specification inference can be useful for producing high quality program patches.<n>Our approach SpecRover (AutoCodeRover-v2) is built on the open-source LLM agent AutoCodeRover.<n>In an evaluation on the full SWE-Bench consisting of 2294 GitHub issues, it shows more than 50% improvement in efficacy over AutoCodeRover.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-05T04:53:01Z)
• A Unified Debugging Approach via LLM-Based Multi-Agent Synergy [39.11825182386288]
  FixAgent is an end-to-end framework for unified debug through multi-agent synergy. It significantly outperforms state-of-the-art repair methods, fixing 1.25$times$ to 2.56$times$ bugs on the repo-level benchmark, Defects4J.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-26T04:55:35Z)
• ML-Bench: Evaluating Large Language Models and Agents for Machine Learning Tasks on Repository-Level Code [76.84199699772903]
  ML-Bench is a benchmark rooted in real-world programming applications that leverage existing code repositories to perform tasks. To evaluate both Large Language Models (LLMs) and AI agents, two setups are employed: ML-LLM-Bench for assessing LLMs' text-to-code conversion within a predefined deployment environment, and ML-Agent-Bench for testing autonomous agents in an end-to-end task execution within a Linux sandbox environment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-16T12:03:21Z)
• Factcheck-Bench: Fine-Grained Evaluation Benchmark for Automatic Fact-checkers [121.53749383203792]
  We present a holistic end-to-end solution for annotating the factuality of large language models (LLMs)-generated responses. We construct an open-domain document-level factuality benchmark in three-level granularity: claim, sentence and document. Preliminary experiments show that FacTool, FactScore and Perplexity are struggling to identify false claims.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-15T14:41:57Z)
• Knowledge-Augmented Language Model Verification [68.6099592486075]
  Recent Language Models (LMs) have shown impressive capabilities in generating texts with the knowledge internalized in parameters. We propose to verify the output and the knowledge of the knowledge-augmented LMs with a separate verifier. Our results show that the proposed verifier effectively identifies retrieval and generation errors, allowing LMs to provide more factually correct outputs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-19T15:40:00Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.