# SOEN-101: Code Generation by Emulating Software Process Models Using Large Language Model Agents

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.15852 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.15852/

## Key facts

- Cited by 34 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Software engineering coding agents, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use.
- Builds on 32 of its 52 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 23 Mar 2024.

## Placed in

- LLM agents and tool use / [Software engineering coding agents](https://mlsanity.com/agents/software-engineering-coding-agents/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 32)

- [LLaMA: Open and Efficient Foundation Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.13971/) (2023)
- [Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2201.11903/) (2022)
- [Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Code](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2107.03374/) (2021)
- [Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.11366/) (2023)
- [Program Synthesis with Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2108.07732/) (2021)
- [Generative Agents: Interactive Simulacra of Human Behavior](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.03442/) (2023)
- [Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement with Self-Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.17651/) (2023)
- [Pre-train, Prompt, and Predict: A Systematic Survey of Prompting Methods in Natural Language Processing](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2107.13586/) (2021)
- [MetaGPT: Meta Programming for A Multi-Agent Collaborative Framework](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.00352/) (2023)
- [Is Your Code Generated by ChatGPT Really Correct? Rigorous Evaluation of Large Language Models for Code Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.01210/) (2023)
- [ChatDev: Communicative Agents for Software Development](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.07924/) (2023)
- [Language Agent Tree Search Unifies Reasoning Acting and Planning in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.04406/) (2023)
- [CodeT: Code Generation with Generated Tests](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2207.10397/) (2022)
- [Character-LLM: A Trainable Agent for Role-Playing](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.10158/) (2023)
- [Benchmarking Large Language Models in Retrieval-Augmented Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.01431/) (2023)
- [How is ChatGPT's behavior changing over time?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.09009/) (2023)
- [Self-collaboration Code Generation via ChatGPT](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.07590/) (2023)
- [Auto-GPT for Online Decision Making: Benchmarks and Additional Opinions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.02224/) (2023)
- [Exploring Large Language Models for Communication Games: An Empirical Study on Werewolf](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.04658/) (2023)
- [An Empirical Evaluation of Using Large Language Models for Automated Unit Test Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.06527/) (2023)
- [Structured Chain-of-Thought Prompting for Code Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.06599/) (2023)
- [Large Language Models are Few-shot Testers: Exploring LLM-based General Bug Reproduction](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2209.11515/) (2022)
- [No More Manual Tests? Evaluating and Improving ChatGPT for Unit Test Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.04207/) (2023)
- [Evaluating the Code Quality of AI-Assisted Code Generation Tools: An Empirical Study on GitHub Copilot, Amazon CodeWhisperer, and ChatGPT](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.10778/) (2023)
- [CodeScore: Evaluating Code Generation by Learning Code Execution](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2301.09043/) (2023)
- [ChatGPT Prompt Patterns for Improving Code Quality, Refactoring, Requirements Elicitation, and Software Design](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.07839/) (2023)
- [Reordering Examples Helps during Priming-based Few-Shot Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2106.01751/) (2021)
- [Evaluating Instruction-Tuned Large Language Models on Code Comprehension and Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.01240/) (2023)
- [Log Parsing with Prompt-based Few-shot Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.07435/) (2023)
- [Alleviating the Sample Selection Bias in Few-shot Learning by Removing Projection to the Centroid](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.16834/) (2022)

## Built on by (most cited first, 30 of 34)

- [LLM-Based Multi-Agent Systems for Software Engineering: Literature Review, Vision and the Road Ahead](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.04834/) (2024)
- [Trae Agent: An LLM-based Agent for Software Engineering with Test-time Scaling](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.23370/) (2025)
- [Large Language Model-based Data Science Agent: A Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.02744/) (2025)
- [NLPerturbator: Studying the Robustness of Code LLMs to Natural Language Variations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.19783/) (2024)
- [A Multi-Expert Large Language Model Architecture for Verilog Code Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.08029/) (2024)
- [From Code Foundation Models to Agents and Applications: A Comprehensive Survey and Practical Guide to Code Intelligence](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2511.18538/) (2025)
- [HiBench: Benchmarking LLMs Capability on Hierarchical Structure Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.00912/) (2025)
- [Robustness in Large Language Models: A Survey of Mitigation Strategies and Evaluation Metrics](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.18658/) (2025)
- [MANTRA: Enhancing Automated Method-Level Refactoring with Contextual RAG and Multi-Agent LLM Collaboration](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.14340/) (2025)
- [A Multi-Agent Approach to Fault Localization via Graph-Based Retrieval and Reflexion](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.13642/) (2024)
- [Enhancing LLM Code Generation: A Systematic Evaluation of Multi-Agent Collaboration and Runtime Debugging for Improved Accuracy, Reliability, and Latency](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.02133/) (2025)
- [Towards Advancing Code Generation with Large Language Models: A Research Roadmap](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.11354/) (2025)
- [RobuNFR: Evaluating the Robustness of Large Language Models on Non-Functional Requirements Aware Code Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.22851/) (2025)
- [Cognitive Agents Powered by Large Language Models for Agile Software Project Management](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.16678/) (2025)
- [Understanding and Bridging the Planner-Coder Gap: A Systematic Study on the Robustness of Multi-Agent Systems for Code Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.10460/) (2025)
- [Your Code Agent Can Grow Alongside You with Structured Memory](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.13258/) (2026)
- [LLM-Based Multi-Agent Systems for Code Generation: A Multi-Vocal Literature Review](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.16321/) (2026)
- [Towards Agentic OS: An LLM Agent Framework for Linux Schedulers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.01245/) (2025)
- [Secure-Instruct: An Automated Pipeline for Synthesizing Instruction-Tuning Datasets Using LLMs for Secure Code Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.07189/) (2025)
- [Evaluating Software Process Models for Multi-Agent Class-Level Code Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2511.09794/) (2025)
- [ASEval: Automated Trajectory-Level Security Testing for Autonomous Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.22321/) (2026)
- [System Test Case Design from Requirements Specifications: Insights and Challenges of Using ChatGPT](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.03693/) (2024)
- [Towards Machine-Generated Code for the Resolution of User Intentions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.17531/) (2025)
- [A Research Roadmap for Augmenting Software Engineering Processes and Software Products with Generative AI](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.26275/) (2025)
- [From LLMs to Agents in Programming: The Impact of Providing an LLM with a Compiler](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.12146/) (2026)
- [FVRuleLearner: Operator-Level Reasoning Tree (Op-Tree)-Based Rules Learning for Formal Verification](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.03245/) (2026)
- [Social Bias in LLM-Generated Code: Benchmark and Mitigation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.00382/) (2026)
- [MANGO: Automated Multi-Agent Test Oracle Generation for Vision-Language-Action Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.24815/) (2026)
- [Small, Free, and Effective: Orchestrating Open-Weight Small Language Models to Outperform Single LLM for Malware Analysis](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.20216/) (2026)
- [FlowScout: From Execution Feedback to Reliable Tool-Using Agent Workflows](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.10039/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Software process models are essential to facilitate collaboration and communication among software teams to solve complex development tasks. Inspired by these software engineering practices, we present FlowGen - a code generation framework that emulates software process models based on multiple Large Language Model (LLM) agents. We emulate three process models, FlowGenWaterfall, FlowGenTDD, and FlowGenScrum, by assigning LLM agents to embody roles (i.e., requirement engineer, architect, developer, tester, and scrum master) that correspond to everyday development activities and organize their communication patterns. The agents work collaboratively using chain-of-thought and prompt composition with continuous self-refinement to improve the code quality. We use GPT3.5 as our underlying LLM and several baselines (RawGPT, CodeT, Reflexion) to evaluate code generation on four benchmarks: HumanEval, HumanEval-ET, MBPP, and MBPP-ET. Our findings show that FlowGenScrum excels compared to other process models, achieving a Pass@1 of 75.2, 65.5, 82.5, and 56.7 in HumanEval, HumanEval-ET, MBPP, and MBPP-ET, respectively (an average of 15% improvement over RawGPT). Compared with other state-of-the-art techniques, FlowGenScrum achieves a higher Pass@1 in MBPP compared to CodeT, with both outperforming Reflexion. Notably, integrating CodeT into FlowGenScrum resulted in statistically significant improvements, achieving the highest Pass@1 scores. Our analysis also reveals that the development activities impacted code smell and exception handling differently, with design and code review adding more exception handling and reducing code smells. Finally, FlowGen models maintain stable Pass@1 scores across GPT3.5 versions and temperature values, highlighting the effectiveness of software process models in enhancing the quality and stability of LLM-generated code.