Latent Programming Horizons in Coding Agents

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.05188v1
• Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2026 15:08:26 GMT
• Title: Latent Programming Horizons in Coding Agents
• Abstract summary: coding agent solving a software-engineering task spends dozens of steps reasoning, editing code, and running tests.<n>We show that the residual streams of language models under coding agents linearly encode properties of the evolving program.<n> Probes trained to predict the outcome of future edits achieve performance above chance up to roughly 25 steps in advance.
• Score: 6.8463578914435645
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: A coding agent solving a software-engineering task spends dozens of steps reasoning, editing code, and running tests, yet little is known about what the underlying language model internally represents about the program it is working on. We show that the residual streams of language models under coding agents linearly encode properties of the evolving program: a logistic-regression probe on hidden states is able to decode whether the current code parses, passes its test suite, reduces the number of failing tests, and introduces regressions, reaching AUC up to 0.83 for correctness across two models and two benchmarks. Our second finding is more surprising: these representations run ahead of the agent's own edits. Probes trained to predict the outcome of future edits (before they are materialized and written on disk) achieve performance above chance up to roughly 25 steps in advance. We call this the agent's latent programming horizon. As a proof of external validity, we show that the probes transfer across benchmarks without retraining. Our positive results open calls for more research in mechanistic interpretability of coding agents.

Related papers

• Autoresearch with Coding Agents: Generalizers and Metric-Maximizers on Quran Recitation Data [4.191965713559235]
  Coding agents can now be left alone to improve software against a score.<n>In this pattern, the agent receives a dataset, an evaluation script, and one editable file, and iterates without supervision.<n>We ran this loop on a real production task: deciding which Quranic verses appear in a noisy speech-recognition transcript.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-20T15:32:09Z)
• TTHE: Test-Time Harness Evolution [50.26245555541721]
  Existing approaches optimize such harnesses before deployment, searching training or development data for a fixed agent workflow that is then frozen at test time.<n>We ask whether the harness can instead be optimized during evaluation itself, using only the unlabeled execution traces the agent produces on the test inputs.<n>During evaluation, TTHE maintains a population of candidate harnesses and refines them through an agentic proposer that reasons over their execution traces.<n>A judge then commits an improved harness from execution-derived proxy signals, and the selected program persists to govern subsequent inputs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-09T05:53:39Z)
• Towards Evaluation of Implicit Software World Models in Coding LLMs [3.4011650749358786]
  We take a step toward a broader evaluation by shifting the observable axis to execution resources.<n>We use SWE-bench Verified as the source of data to hold the test close to real-world software engineering tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-25T08:02:32Z)
• Agent trajectories as programs: fingerprinting and programming coding-agent behavior [0.49316866264940024]
  Benchmark scores tell you what an agent got right; they do not tell you how it got there.<n>In this work, we introduce methods for comparing agents procedurally in different contexts, where the model, tasks, and approaches vary.<n>A probe over these procedural signatures attributes an unseen trajectory to the correct agent at 85.7% accuracy, controlling for leakage across tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-15T17:28:41Z)
• Automating Formal Verification with Agent-Guided Tree Search [0.0]
  Formal verification offers a path to provably correct software, but writing verified code remains expensive enough that the technique is rarely used in production.<n>Recent benchmarks measure their ability to translate specifications into code and machine-checked iteration of correctness.<n>This thesis evaluates the state of such LLM-driven verified-code generation in Lean and develops search-based methods for improving performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-26T14:50:47Z)
• LiveFMBench: Unveiling the Power and Limits of Agentic Workflows in Specification Generation [75.05397479715576]
  Large language models (LLMs) and agents have shown promising progress, but their true capabilities and failure modes remain unclear.<n>We present the first systematic and contamination-aware study of LLM- and agent-based formal specification generation for C programs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-02T11:31:33Z)
• SlopCodeBench: Benchmarking How Coding Agents Degrade Over Long-Horizon Iterative Tasks [55.76734816061826]
  We introduce SlopCodeBench, a language-agnostic benchmark comprising 20 problems and 93 checkpoints.<n>We track two trajectory-level quality signals: verbosity, the fraction of redundant or duplicated code, and structural erosion.<n>No agent solves any problem end-to-end across 11 models; the highest checkpoint solve rate is 17.2%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-25T19:26:44Z)
• AgentProcessBench: Diagnosing Step-Level Process Quality in Tool-Using Agents [50.481033105867205]
  We introduce AgentProcessBench, the first benchmark dedicated to evaluating step-level effectiveness in realistic, tool-augmented trajectories.<n>The benchmark comprises 1,000 diverse trajectories and 8,509 human-labeled step annotations with 89.1% inter-annotator agreement.<n>It features a ternary labeling scheme to capture exploration and an error propagation rule to reduce labeling ambiguity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-15T16:13:58Z)
• FeatBench: Evaluating Coding Agents on Feature Implementation for Vibe Coding [11.846768103642583]
  FeatBench is a novel benchmark for vibe coding that focuses on feature implementation.<n> FeatBench is built on a multi-level filtering pipeline to ensure quality and a fully automated pipeline to evolve the benchmark.<n>Our evaluation reveals that feature implementation within the vibe coding paradigm is a significant challenge, with the highest success rate of only 29.94%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-26T11:47:50Z)
• Diffusion Language Models Know the Answer Before Decoding [56.96815863705218]
  Diffusion language models (DLMs) have emerged as an alternative to autoregressive approaches.<n>Our work highlights and leverage an overlooked property of DLMs early answer convergence.<n>We introduce Prophet, a training-free fast decoding paradigm that enables early commit decoding.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-27T15:40:25Z)
• Program Semantic Inequivalence Game with Large Language Models [20.43560028315856]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) can achieve strong performance on everyday coding tasks, but they can fail on complex tasks that require non-trivial reasoning about program semantics.<n>In this work, we explore a method to synthetically generate code reasoning training data based on a semantic inequivalence game SInQ.<n>We prove that this setup enables theoretically unlimited improvement through self-play in the limit of infinite computational resources.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-02T20:03:35Z)
• Teaching Large Language Models to Self-Debug [62.424077000154945]
  Large language models (LLMs) have achieved impressive performance on code generation. We propose Self- Debugging, which teaches a large language model to debug its predicted program via few-shot demonstrations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-11T10:43:43Z)
• Fault-Aware Neural Code Rankers [64.41888054066861]
  We propose fault-aware neural code rankers that can predict the correctness of a sampled program without executing it. Our fault-aware rankers can significantly increase the pass@1 accuracy of various code generation models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-04T22:01:05Z)

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.