Pith. sign in

REVIEW 14 cited by

MarsCode Agent: AI-native Automated Bug Fixing

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2409.00899 v2 pith:E3ZCPLG2 submitted 2024-09-02 cs.SE cs.AI

MarsCode Agent: AI-native Automated Bug Fixing

classification cs.SE cs.AI
keywords agentmarscodefixingllmssoftwareautomatedcodegeneration
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have shown significant potential to automate various software development tasks, including code completion, test generation, and bug fixing. However, the application of LLMs for automated bug fixing remains challenging due to the complexity and diversity of real-world software systems. In this paper, we introduce MarsCode Agent, a novel framework that leverages LLMs to automatically identify and repair bugs in software code. MarsCode Agent combines the power of LLMs with advanced code analysis techniques to accurately localize faults and generate patches. Our approach follows a systematic process of planning, bug reproduction, fault localization, candidate patch generation, and validation to ensure high-quality bug fixes. We evaluated MarsCode Agent on SWE-bench, a comprehensive benchmark of real-world software projects, and our results show that MarsCode Agent achieves a high success rate in bug fixing compared to most of the existing automated approaches.

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 14 Pith papers

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

  1. Evaluating LLM Agents on Automated Software Analysis Tasks

    cs.SE 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    A custom LLM agent achieves 94% manually verified success on a new benchmark of 35 software analysis setups, outperforming baselines at 77%, but struggles with stage mixing, error localization, and overestimating its ...

  2. Evaluating LLM Agents on Automated Software Analysis Tasks

    cs.SE 2026-04 conditional novelty 7.0

    A purpose-built, staged LLM agent correctly sets up and executes software analysis tools on 33 of 35 benchmark tasks, outperforming general-purpose agent baselines by at least 17 percentage points.

  3. AgenticSZZ: Temporal Knowledge Graph-Guided Agentic Bug-Inducing Commit Identification

    cs.SE 2026-02 conditional novelty 7.0

    AgenticSZZ reframes bug-inducing commit identification as temporal knowledge graph search navigated by an LLM agent, reporting F1 scores of 0.47-0.79 and up to 34% improvement over prior SZZ methods on three datasets.

  4. MultiFixer: A Coordinator-Proposer Based Multi-Agent Framework For Fixing Multi-Hunk Bugs

    cs.SE 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    Coordinator-proposer multi-agent repair schedules hunks, proposes candidate patches in parallel, and selects/refines them, fixing 326/835 Defects4J bugs with GPT-3.5 and 420 with Claude-3.5-Sonnet.

  5. EviACT: An Evidence-to-Action Framework for Agentic Program Repair

    cs.SE 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    EviACT coordinates retrieval, compilation, and targeted testing guardrails in an agentic APR system, reporting 1.6-6.0pp higher resolve rates and 70.1-88.6% lower per-bug API costs across four benchmarks.

  6. Beyond Fixed Tests: Repository-Level Issue Resolution as Coevolution of Code and Behavioral Constraints

    cs.SE 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Agent-CoEvo is a multi-agent LLM framework that coevolves code patches and test patches to resolve repository-level issues, outperforming fixed-test baselines on SWE-bench Lite and SWT-bench Lite.

  7. One Tool Is Enough: Reinforcement Learning for Repository-Level LLM Agents

    cs.SE 2025-12 conditional novelty 6.0

    Repository-level issue localization can be done by a single jump-to-definition tool trained with reinforcement learning, achieving strong results on SWE-bench despite using only open-weights models.

  8. Beyond Final Code: A Process-Oriented Error Analysis of Software Development Agents in Real-World GitHub Scenarios

    cs.SE 2025-03 accept novelty 6.0

    Empirical study of 3977 agent trajectories finds Python execution errors correlate with lower success rates on GitHub issues, flags challenging errors, and reports three confirmed bugs in the SWE-Bench platform.

  9. Agentless: Demystifying LLM-based Software Engineering Agents

    cs.SE 2024-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    Agentless, a basic three-phase LLM pipeline for bug localization, repair, and validation, outperforms complex open-source agents on SWE-bench Lite with 32% success rate at $0.70 cost.

  10. Learning Project-wise Subsequent Code Edits via Interleaving Neural-based Induction and Tool-based Deduction

    cs.SE 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    TRACE improves project-wise subsequent code editing by interleaving neural-based induction for semantic edits and tool-based deduction for syntactic edits.

  11. Rethinking the Value of Agent-Generated Tests for LLM-Based Software Engineering Agents

    cs.SE 2026-02 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Agent-generated tests mainly act as observational feedback channels and do not meaningfully improve issue resolution success in current LLM software engineering agents.

  12. Beyond Accuracy: Behavioral Dynamics of Agentic Multi-Hunk Repair

    cs.SE 2025-11 conditional novelty 5.0

    On 372 multi-hunk bugs, coding agents repair between 26% and 93% of defects, accuracy falls as edits become more divergent and dispersed, and failed repairs consume up to 343% more tokens.

  13. LLM-Based Automated Diagnosis Of Integration Test Failures At Google

    cs.SE 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Auto-Diagnose applies LLMs to summarize and diagnose root causes of integration test failures, reporting 90.14% accuracy on 71 manual cases and positive adoption after Google-wide rollout.

  14. LLM+Graph@VLDB'2025 Workshop Summary

    cs.DB 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 1.0

    The report summarizes key research directions, challenges, and solutions from the LLM+Graph workshop at VLDB 2025.