Skip to content
← Back to explorer

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

Zhi Chen, Wei Ma, Lingxiao Jiang · Mar 16, 2025 · Citations: 0

How to use this page

Provisional trust

This page is a lightweight research summary built from the abstract and metadata while deeper extraction catches up.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Read the full paper before copying any benchmark, metric, or protocol choices.

Evidence quality

Provisional

Derived from abstract and metadata only.

Abstract

AI-driven software development has rapidly advanced with the emergence of software development agents that leverage large language models (LLMs) to tackle complex, repository-level software engineering tasks. These agents go beyond just generation of final code; they engage in multi-step reasoning, utilize various tools for code modification and debugging, and interact with execution environments to diagnose and iteratively resolve issues. However, most existing evaluations focus primarily on static analyses of final code outputs, yielding limited insights into the agents' dynamic problem-solving processes. To fill this gap, we conduct an in-depth empirical study on 3,977 solving-phase trajectories and 3,931 testing-phase logs from 8 top-ranked agents evaluated on 500 GitHub issues in the SWE-Bench benchmark. Our exploratory analysis shows that Python execution errors during the issue resolution phase correlate with lower resolution rates and increased reasoning overheads. We have identified the most prevalent errors -- such as ModuleNotFoundError and TypeError -- and highlighted particularly challenging errors like OSError and database-related issues (e.g., IntegrityError) that demand significantly more debugging effort. Furthermore, we have discovered 3 bugs in the SWE-Bench platform that affect benchmark fairness and accuracy; these issues have been reported to and confirmed by the maintainers. To promote transparency and foster future research, we publicly share our datasets and analysis scripts.

Abstract-only analysis — low confidence

All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.

  • This page is still relying on abstract and metadata signals, not a fuller protocol read.

Should You Rely On This Paper?

Signal extraction is still processing. This page currently shows metadata-first guidance until structured protocol fields are ready.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A provisional background reference while structured extraction finishes.

Main weakness

This page is still relying on abstract and metadata signals, not a fuller protocol read.

Trust level

Provisional

Usefulness score

Unavailable

Eval-fit score is unavailable until extraction completes.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Weak / implicit signal

Usefulness for eval research

Provisional (processing)

Extraction confidence 0%

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.

Human Feedback Types

provisional (inferred)

None explicit

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.

"AI-driven software development has rapidly advanced with the emergence of software development agents that leverage large language models (LLMs) to tackle complex, repository-level software engineering tasks."

Evaluation Modes

provisional (inferred)

Automatic metrics, Long Horizon tasks

Includes extracted eval setup.

"AI-driven software development has rapidly advanced with the emergence of software development agents that leverage large language models (LLMs) to tackle complex, repository-level software engineering tasks."

Quality Controls

provisional (inferred)

Not reported

No explicit QC controls found.

"AI-driven software development has rapidly advanced with the emergence of software development agents that leverage large language models (LLMs) to tackle complex, repository-level software engineering tasks."

Benchmarks / Datasets

provisional (inferred)

SWE Bench

Useful for quick benchmark comparison.

"To fill this gap, we conduct an in-depth empirical study on 3,977 solving-phase trajectories and 3,931 testing-phase logs from 8 top-ranked agents evaluated on 500 GitHub issues in the SWE-Bench benchmark."

Reported Metrics

provisional (inferred)

Accuracy

Useful for evaluation criteria comparison.

"Furthermore, we have discovered 3 bugs in the SWE-Bench platform that affect benchmark fairness and accuracy; these issues have been reported to and confirmed by the maintainers."

Rater Population

provisional (inferred)

Unknown

Rater source not explicitly reported.

"AI-driven software development has rapidly advanced with the emergence of software development agents that leverage large language models (LLMs) to tackle complex, repository-level software engineering tasks."

Human Feedback Details

This page is using abstract-level cues only right now. Treat the signals below as provisional.

  • Potential human-data signal: No explicit human-data keywords detected.
  • Potential benchmark anchors: SWE-bench
  • Abstract highlights: 3 key sentence(s) extracted below.

Evaluation Details

Evaluation fields are inferred from the abstract only.

  • Potential evaluation modes: Automatic metrics, Long-horizon tasks
  • Potential metric signals: Accuracy
  • Confidence: Provisional (metadata-only fallback).

Research Brief

Metadata summary

AI-driven software development has rapidly advanced with the emergence of software development agents that leverage large language models (LLMs) to tackle complex, repository-level software engineering tasks.

Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.

Key Takeaways

  • AI-driven software development has rapidly advanced with the emergence of software development agents that leverage large language models (LLMs) to tackle complex, repository-level software engineering tasks.
  • These agents go beyond just generation of final code; they engage in multi-step reasoning, utilize various tools for code modification and debugging, and interact with execution environments to diagnose and iteratively resolve issues.
  • However, most existing evaluations focus primarily on static analyses of final code outputs, yielding limited insights into the agents' dynamic problem-solving processes.

Researcher Actions

  • Compare this paper against others mentioning SWE-bench.
  • Validate inferred eval signals (Automatic metrics, Long-horizon tasks) against the full paper.
  • Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

  • Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
  • Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

Recommended Queries

Related Papers

Papers are ranked by protocol overlap, extraction signal alignment, and semantic proximity.

No related papers found for this item yet.

Get Started

Join the #1 Platform for AI Training Talent

Where top AI builders and expert AI Trainers connect to build the future of AI.
Self-Service
Post a Job
Post your project and get a shortlist of qualified AI Trainers and Data Labelers. Hire and manage your team in the tools you already use.
Managed Service
For Large Projects
Done-for-You
We recruit, onboard, and manage a dedicated team inside your tools. End-to-end operations for large or complex projects.
For Freelancers
Join as an AI Trainer
Find AI training and data labeling projects across platforms, all in one place. One profile, one application process, more opportunities.