arXiv preprint ·
From Faulty Claims to Incorrect Patches: An Empirical Study of Task-Grounded Reasoning in Coding Agents
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
Abstract
Large language model (LLM)-based coding agents increasingly resolve real-world software engineering tasks, yet still fail on many of them. Prior trajectory studies characterize these failures through task-agnostic patterns of agent behavior, such as repeated actions. However, an agent may follow a sound workflow yet act on a faulty understanding of the existing code, the task requirements, or a candidate fix. Reasoning models, which power most state-of-the-art coding agents, reveal this understanding in their native chain-of-thought (CoT), whose claims about the task can be checked against the facts. Yet it remains unclear how many such checkable claims the CoT contains, how many are faulty, and whether faulty claims actually cause incorrect patches. We present the first empirical study of such claims, which we term task-grounded reasoning, analyzing 400 trajectories of four open-weight reasoning models on SWE-bench Pro. We extract atomic claims from the CoT with an LLM, assess them against evidence gathered by an LLM agent, and manually trace the defects of incorrect patches back to faulty claims, confirming each link with a claim-corrected replay. Task-grounded reasoning covers only 18.5% of the CoT tokens, yet yields 191 atomic claims per trajectory, at least 9.6% of which are faulty. Faulty claims also occur in 96.7% of the resolved trajectories, so their mere presence is a weak signal of failure. Yet two thirds of the 188 incorrect patches trace back to faulty claims. Correcting such a claim makes the agent fix the linked defect in 89.0% of the cases, and correcting all such claims resolves 11.7% of the failed tasks. Our findings show that the CoT carries task-specific signals for diagnosing and repairing agent failures, but exploiting them requires pinpointing the few faulty claims that actually cause patch defects.
The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.
Read it on ReadSearch
Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.
More in Software Engineering
Are LLM-Generated Formal Specifications Faithful to Their Requirements? A Study on Bimodal Formal Specification Generation
PMU Foundation Model Bridge: A Tool for Connecting Synchrophasor Streams to Time Series Foundation Models
CrowdStrike Channel File 291: An Engineering Analysis of a Global Endpoint Outage
OneCodeReviewBench: Typed Decisions for Code Review and Search
Who Verifies the Tools? How Warped Formatters Mislead Agents and Their Verifiers
Get the few papers worth your time in Software Engineering every morning.
ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.