Beyond Resolution Rates: Behavioral Drivers of Coding Agent Success and Failure

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.02547v1
• Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2026 21:56:23 GMT
• Title: Beyond Resolution Rates: Behavioral Drivers of Coding Agent Success and Failure
• Abstract summary: Coding agents represent a new paradigm in automated software engineering, combining the reasoning capabilities of Large Language Models with tool-augmented interaction loops.<n>Top-ranked LLM-based coding agents still fail on over 20% of benchmarked problems.<n>We present a large-scale empirical study analyzing 9,374 trajectories from 19 agents on 500 tasks.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Coding agents represent a new paradigm in automated software engineering, combining the reasoning capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) with tool-augmented interaction loops. However, coding agents still have severe limitations. Top-ranked LLM-based coding agents still fail on over 20% of benchmarked problems. Yet, we lack a systematic understanding of why (i.e., the causes) agents fail, and how failure unfolds behaviorally. We present a large-scale empirical study analyzing 9,374 trajectories from 19 agents (8 coding agent frameworks, 14 LLMs) on 500 tasks. We organize our analysis around three research questions. First, we investigate why agents fail on specific tasks and find that patch complexity alone does not explain difficulty: 12 never-solved tasks require only simple patches and were considered easy by human annotators, yet all agents fail due to gaps in architectural reasoning and domain knowledge. Second, we examine how behavioral patterns differentiate success from failure. The widely reported correlation between trajectory length and failure reverses direction once task difficulty is controlled, revealing it as a confound. Instead, trajectory structure discriminates consistently: agents that gather context before editing and invest in validation succeed more often, and these strategies are agent-determined rather than task-adaptive. Third, we disentangle LLM capability from framework design and find that the LLM is the primary driver of both outcome and behavior: agents sharing the same LLM agree on far more tasks than agents sharing the same framework, and the framework performance gap shrinks with each generation of LLM improvement. Framework prompts do influence agent tactics, but this influence diminishes with stronger LLMs.

Related papers

• Who Broke the System? Failure Localization in LLM-Based Multi-Agent Systems [9.458292549037155]
  We study the problem of failure localization in LLM-based multi-agent systems.<n>We present Agent, a framework that attributes failures to both a specific agent and the earliest decisive step.<n> Experimental results show that Agent consistently outperforms existing failure localization methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-08T23:33:49Z)
• FALAT: Tracing Failures in LLM Agent Trajectories via Dependency-Guided Search [11.638321375070047]
  We propose FALAT, a diagnostic framework for failure attribution in LLM agent trajectories.<n>We evaluate FALAT on the Who&When benchmark, which includes both algorithm-generated and hand-crafted multi-agent failure trajectories.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-30T15:11:35Z)
• FAMA: Failure-Aware Meta-Agentic Framework for Open-Source LLMs in Interactive Tool Use Environments [60.3427704389541]
  Large Language Models are being increasingly deployed as the decision-making core of autonomous agents.<n>Yet, in conversational benchmarks, these agents frequently fail due to the cascading effects of incorrect decision-making.<n>We present the Failure-Aware Meta-Agentic framework to tackle these challenges.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-28T02:21:53Z)
• Understanding Code Agent Behaviour: An Empirical Study of Success and Failure Trajectories [10.751728274263536]
  This paper presents an empirical study of agent trajectories, namely the execution traces capturing the steps agents take when attempting to resolve software issues.<n>We analyse trajectories from three state-of-the-art code agents (OpenHands, SWE-agent, and Prometheus) on the SWE-Bench benchmark, examining both successful and failed attempts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-31T18:58:13Z)
• Which Agent Causes Task Failures and When? On Automated Failure Attribution of LLM Multi-Agent Systems [50.29939179830491]
  Failure attribution in LLM multi-agent systems remains underexplored and labor-intensive.<n>We develop and evaluate three automated failure attribution methods, summarizing their corresponding pros and cons.<n>The best method achieves 53.5% accuracy in identifying failure-responsible agents but only 14.2% in pinpointing failure steps.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-30T23:09:44Z)
• Why Do Multi-Agent LLM Systems Fail? [87.90075668488434]
  We introduce MAST-Data, a comprehensive dataset of 1600+ annotated traces collected across 7 popular MAS frameworks.<n>We build the first Multi-Agent System Failure taxonomy (MAST)<n>We leverage MAST and MAST-Data to analyze failure patterns across models (GPT4, Claude 3, Qwen2.5, CodeLlama) and tasks (coding, math, general agent)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-17T19:04:38Z)
• OR-LLM-Agent: Automating Modeling and Solving of Operations Research Optimization Problems with Reasoning LLM [15.260794368585692]
  We propose OR-LLM-Agent, an AI agent framework built on reasoning LLMs for automated Operations Research problem solving.<n>We show that OR-LLM-Agent utilizing DeepSeek-R1 in its framework outperforms advanced methods, including GPT-o3, Gemini 2.5 Pro, DeepSeek-R1, and ORLM, by at least 7% in accuracy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-13T03:40:50Z)
• ReMA: Learning to Meta-think for LLMs with Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning [53.817538122688944]
  We introduce Reinforced Meta-thinking Agents (ReMA) to elicit meta-thinking behaviors from Reasoning of Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>ReMA decouples the reasoning process into two hierarchical agents: a high-level meta-thinking agent responsible for generating strategic oversight and plans, and a low-level reasoning agent for detailed executions.<n> Empirical results from single-turn experiments demonstrate that ReMA outperforms single-agent RL baselines on complex reasoning tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-12T16:05:31Z)
• When Disagreements Elicit Robustness: Investigating Self-Repair Capabilities under LLM Multi-Agent Disagreements [56.29265568399648]
  We argue that disagreements prevent premature consensus and expand the explored solution space.<n>Disagreements on task-critical steps can derail collaboration depending on the topology of solution paths.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-21T02:24:43Z)
• Scaling Autonomous Agents via Automatic Reward Modeling And Planning [52.39395405893965]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities across a range of tasks.<n>However, they still struggle with problems requiring multi-step decision-making and environmental feedback.<n>We propose a framework that can automatically learn a reward model from the environment without human annotations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-17T18:49:25Z)
• Towards Efficient LLM Grounding for Embodied Multi-Agent Collaboration [68.29746557968107]
  We propose a novel framework for multi-agent collaboration that introduces Reinforced Advantage feedback (ReAd) for efficient self-refinement of plans.<n> Experiments on Over-AI and a difficult variant of RoCoBench show that ReAd surpasses baselines in success rate, and also significantly decreases the interaction steps of agents.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-23T08:33:19Z)

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.