Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

MEnvAgent automates construction of verifiable, executable test environments across ten programming languages, beating the strongest baseline on quality while using 43% less time.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

An automated multi-agent pipeline constructs and reuses executable Docker environments for verifiable software-engineering tasks across 10 languages, and fine-tuning on its 3,005-task dataset improves several code models.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-03 challenge →

load-bearing objection The environment-construction work is genuinely useful, but the SFT utility claim is not yet believable until the decontamination footnote becomes an actual overlap analysis. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2601.22859 v3 pith:V4L6R3ZO submitted 2026-01-30 cs.SE cs.AI

MEnvAgent: Scalable Polyglot Environment Construction for Verifiable Software Engineering

Chuanzhe Guo , Jingjing Wu , Sijun He , Yang Chen , Zhaoqi Kuang , Shilong Fan , Bingjin Chen , Siqi Bao
show 5 more authors
Jing Liu Hua Wu Qingfu Zhu Wanxiang Che Haifeng Wang
This is my paper
classification cs.SE cs.AI
keywords automated environment constructionverifiable software engineeringmulti-agent systemenvironment reuseFail-to-Pass criterionpolyglot benchmarkcontainerized executionsupervised fine-tuning
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that the bottleneck in training and evaluating software-engineering agents is not reasoning but the scarcity of verifiable, executable environments: each task needs a containerized setup that reproduces a reported bug (Fail) and confirms its fix (Pass). MEnvAgent is proposed as an automated builder that assembles such environments across ten programming languages using a multi-agent Planning-Execution-Verification loop and an Environment Reuse Mechanism that patches previously built environments instead of rebuilding from scratch. On a new 1,000-task benchmark it reports 8.6% higher Fail-to-Pass rates and 43% lower time costs than the strongest baseline, and it scales the same pipeline to construct a 3,005-instance training dataset. The wider payoff, if the claims hold, is that execution-verified polyglot training data becomes cheap enough to produce routinely, and fine-tuning on it translates into measurable gains on downstream bug-fixing benchmarks.

Core claim

The central claim is that environment construction is an automatable, scalable engineering task, not a manual craft. Formally, given a repository snapshot, an issue, and a fix-plus-test patch, the goal is to find a base image, a build process, and a test configuration satisfying a Fail-to-Pass criterion: the unfixed repository fails the tests, the fixed repository passes them. MEnvAgent turns this into a closed loop of specialized agents that draft a build plan, execute it in a container, diagnose failures, and iterate, and it adds an Environment Reuse Mechanism that retrieves the most compatible historical environment and synthesizes incremental patch commands to adapt it. Evaluated on MEnv

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the pairing of a multi-agent Planning-Execution-Verification loop with an Environment Reuse Mechanism. The loop uses four roles—repository analysis, environment setup, test configuration, and execution/verification—to formulate a build script, run it in a container, attribute failures to missing dependencies or bad test commands, and feed diagnostics back to planning for another iteration. The reuse mechanism maintains a pool of verified environments, retrieves the most similar one by version consistency (preferring the exact repository version, then the nearest newer environment on the assumption of backward compatibility), and has an EnvPatch agent generate an

Load-bearing premise

The training-data utility claim — that the reported performance gains come from the dataset itself — rests on the assumption that MEnvData-SWE does not overlap with the evaluation benchmarks; the paper states that a git-log manipulation issue was rectified to prevent leakage, but it does not describe the rectification or any contamination audit.

What would settle it

Cross-reference MEnvData-SWE instance IDs and base-commit hashes against the evaluation benchmark instances; if a nontrivial fraction overlap, the SFT gains do not demonstrate transfer to unseen tasks. Alternatively, re-run the exact SFT recipe on a purge of MEnvData-SWE with all such overlaps removed and re-evaluate — if the gains disappear, the leakage explanation wins.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Verifiable environment construction stops being the manual, Python-centric bottleneck; the same pipeline can generate executable SWE tasks in Go, Rust, Java, JavaScript, and five more languages.
  • The reuse mechanism's benefit compounds with scale: reuse success rises from near zero to 39% as the per-repository pool grows from 1 to 10 instances, so builders become cheaper as they run longer.
  • Execution-verified multilingual trajectories are a sufficient training signal: fine-tuning on them yields consistent resolved-rate gains across dense and MoE model families, not just one architecture.
  • A 1,000-task, 10-language execution-based benchmark now exists to compare environment-construction frameworks directly on F2P, PASS, and time cost.
  • If the training data holds up, the distinction between synthetic mutation-based datasets and real issue-PR data blurs: real issues plus a cheap automated builder can supply large-scale verification signals without manual curation.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The 8.6% F2P edge is measured on MEnvBench, whose 20 repositories per language were sampled from the same pool that populates the reuse pool; an independent third-party run on freshly collected repositories (post-dataset) would test whether the advantage reflects the mechanism or benefits from construction history shared with the evaluation set.
  • The backward-compatibility heuristic (newer environment supports older dependencies) may degrade for ecosystems with frequent breaking changes, such as fast-moving JavaScript/npm toolchains; comparing per-language reuse success would reveal where the assumption holds.
  • The SFT recipe uses only ~4k trajectories and a 128k context window; if decontamination holds, this is cheap enough to suggest a routine loop—build environments, collect trajectories, fine-tune, re-evaluate—potentially replacing larger synthetic-data pipelines. This is an inference, not a claim in the paper.
  • The Fail-to-Pass criterion verifies environment correctness, but it does not verify that the task itself is well-specified for an agent (e.g., ambiguous issue text); a natural extension is to combine MEnvAgent with an LLM-based issue-quality filter to score task solvability before building.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes MEnvAgent, a multi-agent Planning-Execution-Verification framework that automatically constructs executable Docker environments for repository-level software-engineering tasks. The task is formalized as finding a (base image, build script, test configuration) triple that satisfies a Fail-to-Pass (F2P) criterion. The paper introduces MEnvBench, a 1,000-task, 10-language benchmark; reports that MEnvAgent improves F2P by 8.6% and reduces time cost by 43% relative to SWE-Factory; and constructs MEnvData-SWE, a 3,005-instance polyglot dataset with 3,872 trajectories. Fine-tuning on those trajectories yields consistent gains on SWE-bench Verified and SWE-bench Multilingual.

Significance. If the headline empirical claims hold, this is a substantial contribution: automated polyglot environment construction with a reuse mechanism could lower the cost of building verifiable SWE benchmarks and training data. The paper has notable strengths: the F2P verification protocol is explicit, evaluation is execution-based, the reuse ablation is informative, per-language and cost breakdowns are provided, and the code/benchmark/dataset are promised publicly. However, two load-bearing issues currently prevent the claims from being accepted: the strongest baseline comparison is against a SWE-Factory variant whose 10-language extension is unexplained, and the SFT utility claim rests on missing decontamination evidence. These are correctable within the manuscript's scope, so the paper warrants a major revision rather than rejection.

major comments (4)
  1. [§5, Table 2; §7; Table 12] The SWE-Factory baseline is described in Related Work as supporting four programming languages, yet Table 9 reports it on all 10 MEnvBench languages, and Table 12 lists it with only one language. No extension, adapter, or per-language configuration is described. Because the headline 8.6% F2P gain and 43% time reduction are measured against this baseline, the comparison is load-bearing. Please provide the exact code/config used to run SWE-Factory on the six non-original languages, or restrict headline conclusions to its supported subset.
  2. [§6.3, Table 4, Table 11, footnote 1] The SFT utility claim is not protected from train/evaluation contamination. MEnvData-SWE contains 477 Python instances from 192 Python repositories (Table 11), and SWE-bench Verified is drawn from popular Python repositories. The footnote about fixing a 'git log manipulation issue' addresses an evaluation-harness concern, not overlap between MEnvData-SWE training trajectories and SWE-bench evaluation tasks. The reported gains (e.g., Qwen2.5-Coder-32B from 7.5% to 54.6% on SWE-bench Verified) could partly reflect memorization if any training instance shares a repository, issue, or proximal commit with an evaluation task. Please report a repo/issue/commit-level overlap analysis and a deduplication procedure; if residual overlap remains, retrain or explicitly caveat the results.
  3. [§5, Table 2] All construction experiments use a single temperature-0.5 run with no repeated trials, confidence intervals, or order-effect analysis. The reuse mechanism's time cost depends on the accumulation order of the environment pool, so the reported 3574s vs 6266s average may be order-sensitive. The headline F2P and time figures should be accompanied by variance estimates or a stated justification for why run-to-run variation is negligible.
  4. [§3.2, Eq. (4), Algorithm 1] The reuse mechanism is underspecified at the point where a historical environment Ssim is adapted to a new repository snapshot R. Eq. (4) assumes the final state Snew contains the target snapshot, but the paper does not define how the repository code in Ssim is checked out, replaced, or combined with the incremental dependency patch ΔP. The case study (Fig. 7) only adds a dependency and does not exercise a version change across snapshots, although MEnvBench explicitly includes tasks from distinct historical versions (Sec. 4.2). Please specify the environment state representation and the exact operations performed by EnvPatchAgent to bring the target repository snapshot into the reused environment.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Appendix D.2, Fig. 8] The issue-quality prompt says that a solution that cannot be implemented should receive a score no higher than 5, but the pipeline retains instances with score ≥5. This means a 5-scored unimplementable issue survives the filter. Clarify the effective threshold or adjust the scoring rule.
  2. [References and §A.1] 'SWE-bench Multilingual (Yang et al., 2025c)' points to the SWE-Smith paper, and SWE-Smith is referenced twice as Yang et al. 2025b and 2025c. Please correct the citation mapping and remove the duplication.
  3. [§6.3 and Appendix G] The rejection-sampling protocol for trajectory collection is not described: number of rollout attempts per instance, selection criteria, and filtering steps are needed for reproducibility.
  4. [Fig. 3] The x-axis labels repeat in each subplot and the overlapping text makes the scatter plots difficult to read. Consider a single legend and clearer per-language markers.
  5. [Appendix G.6] The text says training uses 'approximately 4k instances' while Table 11 reports 3,872 trajectories. State the exact number used and whether multiple trajectories per instance were included.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the central environment-construction and SFT-utility claims are evaluated against execution-based benchmarks and external baselines; the only flagged limitation (data-leakage footnote) is a contamination concern, not a circular derivation.

full rationale

Reviewing the claimed derivation chain, I find no step that reduces to its own inputs. The central comparison (Table 2, Section 5) measures MEnvAgent and baselines on MEnvBench, whose task contexts are sampled from GitHub issue-PR pairs (Sections 4.1-4.2, Appendix D) and evaluated with execution-based PASS/F2P criteria (Eqs. 1-2); the F2P criterion is the objective of the environment-construction task, not a fitted parameter, and nothing in the paper states that MEnvBench environments were built by MEnvAgent itself. The reuse-mechanism ablation (Section 6.1, Table 3, Figure 4) isolates components against a scratch baseline and reports measured time and pass rates, again an empirical comparison rather than a definitional equivalence. The SFT utility claim (Section 6.3, Table 4) is validated on external benchmarks (SWE-bench Verified and SWE-bench Multilingual), so the reported gains are not a self-fulfilling fit to MEnvData-SWE. No load-bearing self-citations appear: SWE-Factory (Guo et al., 2025) is cited as an external baseline, and its author list does not overlap with the present paper's authors. The only notable limitation is Footnote 1's 'git log manipulation issue' for data leakage, which is a contamination concern (no overlap audit or deduplication procedure is provided) rather than circularity: even if residual overlap inflated the SFT numbers, that would be data leakage, not a derivation that equals its inputs. Accordingly, the score is 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on domain assumptions about software evolution (new environments support old dependencies), about PR ground truth, and about the reliability of the authors' decontamination. The listed thresholds are hand-selected and unablated; none is fitted to optimize MEnvBench results, but their fixed values affect the composition of both MEnvBench and MEnvData-SWE.

free parameters (4)
  • Issue quality threshold = 5
    Appendix D.2: instances with LLM judge score below 5 are discarded; no sensitivity analysis. This threshold directly determines the composition of MEnvBench and MEnvData-SWE.
  • Maximum construction iterations = 5
    Appendix E, Table 8: MEnvAgent and SWE-Factory both cap at 5 planning-execution-verification retries; no ablation on this cap.
  • MEnvBench sampling density = 5 instances per repository (10 languages x 20 repositories)
    Section 4.2: benchmark structure is fixed at 10 languages x 20 repos x 5 instances; ablation extends to 10 instances/repo only on a Python subset, with no global sensitivity check.
  • Candidate pool filters = >1,000 stars; >200 forks/issues/PRs; >60% primary language
    Section 4.1 Phase 1: thresholds chosen to reduce construction failures; no sensitivity analysis on the resulting 8,000-repository pool.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Backward compatibility: newer verified environments support older dependencies, so retrieving the newest environment for a repository minimizes adaptation cost.
    Section 3.2, Environment Retrieval; if this assumption fails, reuse degrades into repeated repairs and the claimed 43% time reduction is unsupported.
  • domain assumption F2P executability (Eq. 2) is sufficient for task validity: tests are assumed non-flaky and faithfully encode the issue.
    Eq. 2 in Sections 2 and 3; no flakiness analysis or human audit of the 1,000 MEnvBench tasks; vacuous or environment-dependent tests would corrupt PASS/F2P labels.
  • domain assumption Extracted test_patch and fix_patch from issue-linked PRs correctly represent the issue's failure and resolution.
    Sections 2 and 4.1; the whole pipeline assumes linked PRs are ground truth, with no manual validation reported.
  • domain assumption LLM-based issue quality scoring (DeepSeek-V3.2) with threshold 5 reliably identifies solvable, unambiguous issues.
    Appendix D.2; no human agreement study is provided, and this filter is applied to the entire candidate pool.
  • ad hoc to paper The authors' git-log rectification fully removed data leakage between MEnvData-SWE and SWE-bench evaluation sets.
    Section 6.3 footnote says the authors rectified a git log manipulation issue; the assumption that this fully removed overlap is necessary for the SFT gains to be evidence of transfer, but no audit is provided.

reviewed 2026-08-03 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of MEnvAgent: Scalable Polyglot Environment Construction for Verifiable Software Engineering." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/V4L6R3ZO

@misc{pith2026260122859,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: MEnvAgent: Scalable Polyglot Environment Construction for Verifiable Software Engineering},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/V4L6R3ZO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2601.22859}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

The evolution of Large Language Model (LLM) agents for software engineering (SWE) is constrained by the scarcity of verifiable datasets, a bottleneck stemming from the complexity of constructing executable environments across diverse languages. To address this, we introduce MEnvAgent, a Multi-language framework for automated Environment construction that facilitates scalable generation of verifiable task instances. MEnvAgent employs a multi-agent Planning-Execution-Verification architecture to autonomously resolve construction failures and integrates a novel Environment Reuse Mechanism that reduces computational overhead by incrementally patching historical environments. Evaluations on MEnvBench, a new benchmark comprising 1,000 tasks across 10 languages, demonstrate that MEnvAgent outperforms baselines, improving Fail-to-Pass (F2P) rates by 8.6% while reducing time costs by 43%. Additionally, we demonstrate the utility of MEnvAgent by constructing MEnvData-SWE, the largest open-source polyglot dataset of realistic verifiable Docker environments to date, alongside solution trajectories that enable consistent performance gains on SWE tasks across a wide range of models. Our code, benchmark, and dataset are available at https://github.com/ernie-research/MEnvAgent.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.22859 by Bingjin Chen, Chuanzhe Guo, HaiFeng Wang, Hua Wu, Jingjing Wu, Jing Liu, Qingfu Zhu, Shilong Fan, Sijun He, Siqi Bao, Wanxiang Che, Yang Chen, Zhaoqi Kuang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Comparison between manual environment construc￾tion and MEnvAgent (Ours). MEnvAgent leverages multi-agent collaboration to achieve automated environment construction, char￾acterized by an efficient environment reuse mechanism. and its variants (Jimenez et al., 2024; Yang et al., 2025c; Zan et al., 2025), have emerged as the standard for eval￾uating the coding capabilities of LLMs. In these settings, autono… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Overview of MEnvAgent. (Top) The Environment Reuse Mechanism retrieves and adapts historical environments via incremental patching to reduce overhead. (Bottom) The Planning-Execution-Verification loop, where agents autonomously draft scripts, interactively repair build errors, and diagnose test failures to guide iterative refinement. 3.1. Multi-Agent Architecture The architecture of MEnvAgent is structured… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Performance trade-off analysis on MEnvBench. The x-axis represents the average time cost (lower is better), and the y-axis represents the pass rate (higher is better). MEnvAgent points cluster in the top-left region, indicating it achieves higher validity and success rates with significantly lower time consumption compared to baselines. 4.3. Evaluation Metrics We employ three metrics to evaluate the perfor… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Impact of data scale on performance metrics. We illustrate the trends of (a) Reuse Success Rate, (b) Time Cost, and (c) Pass Rate as the number of instances per repository increases from 1 to 10. The results confirm that larger data scale significantly enhances reuse probability and overall efficiency. quantitatively corroborated by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: F2P performance analysis relative to repository size. 6.2. In-depth Result Analysis Performance vs. Repository Scale [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Error distribution across 10 programming languages. experiment workflow is as follows: First, we leverage MEn￾vAgent to establish a fully automated pipeline to scale up the construction of verifiable software engineering tasks from real-world GitHub repositories. Through this pipeline, we construct MEnvData-SWE, a diverse dataset compris￾ing 3,005 task instances from 942 repositories across 10 programming … view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: An execution trace of the Environment Reuse Mechanism. MEnvAgent successfully adapts a historical environment by identifying a missing dependency and generating a context-aware patch (Phase 3) without rebuilding the base image. D.3. Data Collection Statistics [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The prompt template used for the deduction-based Issue quality evaluation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The prompt template used for the LLM-based repository domain classification [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: MEnvBench Diversity Statistics. The dataset is analyzed across two key dimensions: (a) the distribution of repositories across 10 distinct application domains, and (b) the distribution of project scale. "base_commit": "e594c19c1ecb9bc947b37d2af75e8d84f6a922e9", "version": "0.38", "language": "Python", "created_at": "2023-11-28T00:01:38Z", "commit_urls": [ "https://github.com/home-assistant/core/commit/7be… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. From Question Answering to Task Completion: A Survey on Agent System and Harness Design

    cs.AI 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Survey framing LLM agents as model-plus-harness systems, decomposing harness responsibilities, mapping them to tasks, and highlighting open challenges in evaluation, safety, and co-evolution.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

23 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Project Summary:From Repository Analysis Agent

  2. [2]

    Build Plan:Selected Base Image (B) and the complete Setup Script (P) containing installation commands

    Feedback:Diagnosis from Verification Agent (in retry loops). Build Plan:Selected Base Image (B) and the complete Setup Script (P) containing installation commands. Test Configuration Agent 1. Project Summary:To identify test frameworks

  3. [3]

    URL https: //aclanthology.org/2025.acl-long.839/

    doi: 10.18653/v1/2025.acl-long.839. URL https: //aclanthology.org/2025.acl-long.839/. Milliken, L., Kang, S., and Yoo, S. Beyond pip install: Eval- uating llm agents for the automated installation of python projects. In2025 IEEE International Conference on Soft- ware Analysis, Evolution and Reengineering (SANER), pp. 1–11. IEEE, 2025. OpenAI. Introducing ...

    arXiv 2025

  4. [5]

    ISBN 979-8-89176-256-5

    Association for Computational Linguistics. ISBN 979-8-89176-256-5. doi: 10.18653/v1/2025.findings-acl

    doi:10.18653/v1/2025.findings-acl 2025

  5. [7]

    Zeng, A., Lv, X., Zheng, Q., Hou, Z., Chen, B., Xie, C., Wang, C., Yin, D., Zeng, H., Zhang, J., et al

    URL https://openreview.net/forum? id=MhBZzkz4h9. Zeng, A., Lv, X., Zheng, Q., Hou, Z., Chen, B., Xie, C., Wang, C., Yin, D., Zeng, H., Zhang, J., et al. Glm-4.5: Agentic, reasoning, and coding (arc) foundation models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.06471, 2025. Zhang, K., Li, J., Li, G., Shi, X., and Jin, Z. Codeagent: Enhancing code generation with tool-integ...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  6. [10]

    Setup Script (P):To align test commands with installed binaries

  7. [11]

    Test Script (T ):Executable commands to trigger the repository’s test suite, including necessary environment variables

    Feedback:Diagnosis from Verification Agent (in retry loops). Test Script (T ):Executable commands to trigger the repository’s test suite, including necessary environment variables. Environment Execution Agent

  8. [12]

    Base Image (B):Docker image context

  9. [13]

    Runtime Environment (S):A built container instance (if successful)

    Setup Script (P):Commands to execute. Runtime Environment (S):A built container instance (if successful). Execution Logs: stdout/stderr streams (if failed). Verification Agent 1. Environment (S):The built container

  10. [14]

    Test Script (T):Commands to validate correctness

  11. [15]

    Result:Boolean success status

  12. [16]

    Missing Dependency

    Diagnosis:Error attribution report (e.g., “Missing Dependency”) used as Feedback for planning agents. EnvPatchAgent (Reuse Mechanism)

  13. [17]

    Target Repository (R)

  14. [18]

    Similar Env (Ssim):Retrieved historical env

  15. [19]

    error category

    Feedback:From verification failure inS sim. Incremental Patch (∆P):A sequence of commands to adaptS sim to satisfyR’s requirements. D. MEnvBench Construction Details To ensure the high quality and reproducibility of MEnvBench, we implemented a rigorous data acquisition pipeline. This pipeline, which also serves as the foundation for the MEnvData-SWE datas...

  16. [20]

    (2) Lack of reproduction steps: No operation flow or runnable code to reproduce the issue

    Major Deductions (Violating any item results in a 5-point deduction): • Key Information Missing:(1) Lack of expected results: No description of correct behavior/output; for data processing, missing input examples and expected/error outputs. (2) Lack of reproduction steps: No operation flow or runnable code to reproduce the issue. (3) Missing version info:...

  17. [21]

    category

    Common Deductions (Deduct points based on severity): • Unclear Description:(1) Mixed problems: Single Issue contains multiple unrelated problems or logical contradictions. (2) Undefined terminology: Uses unexplained jargon or abbreviations. (3) Unquantified requirements: Uses vague descriptions (e.g., ”reasonable defaults”, ”user-friendly”, ”faster”) with...

    2018

  18. [22]

    The outcome must be aFailure, confirming that the reported issue is reproducible within the environment

    Reproduction Phase (Fail):The test script is executed in the environment with only theTest Patchapplied (simulating the buggy state). The outcome must be aFailure, confirming that the reported issue is reproducible within the environment

  19. [23]

    The outcome must be aSuccess, confirming that the provided patch effectively resolves the issue

    Verification Phase (Pass):The test script is executed in the environment with both theTest Patchand theFix Patch applied (simulating the fixed state). The outcome must be aSuccess, confirming that the provided patch effectively resolves the issue. Only instances that survive this rigorous pipeline are included in the final dataset, guaranteeing that every...

  20. [62]

    findings-acl.62/

    URL https://aclanthology.org/2025. findings-acl.62/. Yang, J., Jimenez, C. E., Wettig, A., Lieret, K., Yao, S., Narasimhan, K. R., and Press, O. SWE-agent: Agent- computer interfaces enable automated software engineer- ing. InThe Thirty-eighth Annual Conference on Neural 10 MEnvAgent: Scalable Polyglot Environment Construction for Verifiable Software Engi...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  21. [702]

    emnlp-main.702/

    URL https://aclanthology.org/2024. emnlp-main.702/. Bouzenia, I. and Pradel, M. You name it, i run it: An llm agent to execute tests of arbitrary projects.Proceedings of the ACM on Software Engineering, 2(ISSTA):1054–1076, 2025. Chowdhury, N., Aung, J., Shern, C. J., Jaffe, O., Sherburn, D., Starace, G., Mays, E., Dias, R., Aljubeh, M., Glaese, M., Jimene...

    arXiv 2024

  22. [2024]

    Kuang, J., Li, Y ., Zhang, X., Li, Y ., Yin, D., Sun, X., Shen, Y ., and Yu, P

    URL https://openreview.net/forum? id=VTF8yNQM66. Kuang, J., Li, Y ., Zhang, X., Li, Y ., Yin, D., Sun, X., Shen, Y ., and Yu, P. S. Process-level trajectory evaluation for environment configuration in software engineering agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.25694, 2025. Li, W., Zhang, X., Guo, Z., Mao, S., Luo, W., Peng, G., Huang, Y ., Wang, H., and Li, S....

    arXiv 2025

  23. [2025]

    Team, K., Bai, Y ., Bao, Y ., Chen, G., Chen, J., Chen, N., Chen, R., Chen, Y ., Chen, Y ., Chen, Y ., et al

    URL https://openreview.net/forum? id=sf1u3vTRjm. Team, K., Bai, Y ., Bao, Y ., Chen, G., Chen, J., Chen, N., Chen, R., Chen, Y ., Chen, Y ., Chen, Y ., et al. Kimi k2: Open agentic intelligence.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.20534, 2025. Vergopoulos, K., Mueller, M. N., and Vechev, M. Auto- mated benchmark generation for repository-level coding tasks. InICLR 2...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 3, 2026.