mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Fully Autonomous Programming using Iterative Multi-Agent Debugging with Large Language Models

arXiv 2503.07693 ↗First posted 10 Mar 2025cs.AI cs.LG cs.NEcited by 3

On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Software engineering coding agents

Abstract (arXiv)

Program synthesis with Large Language Models (LLMs) suffers from a "near-miss syndrome": the generated code closely resembles a correct solution but fails unit tests due to minor errors. We address this with a multi-agent framework called Synthesize, Execute, Instruct, Debug, and Repair (SEIDR). Effectively applying SEIDR to instruction-tuned LLMs requires determining (a) optimal prompts for LLMs, (b) what ranking algorithm selects the best programs in debugging rounds, and (c) balancing the repair of unsuccessful programs with the generation of new ones. We empirically explore these trade-offs by comparing replace-focused, repair-focused, and hybrid debug strategies. We also evaluate lexicase and tournament selection to rank candidates in each generation. On Program Synthesis Benchmark 2 (PSB2), our framework outperforms both conventional use of OpenAI Codex without a repair phase and traditional genetic programming approaches. SEIDR outperforms the use of an LLM alone, solving 18 problems in C++ and 20 in Python on PSB2 at least once across experiments. To assess generalizability, we employ GPT-3.5 and Llama 3 on the PSB2 and HumanEval-X benchmarks. Although SEIDR with these models does not surpass current state-of-the-art methods on the Python benchmarks, the results on HumanEval-C++ are promising. SEIDR with Llama 3-8B achieves an average pass@100 of 84.2%. Across all SEIDR runs, 163 of 164 problems are solved at least once with GPT-3.5 in HumanEval-C++, and 162 of 164 with the smaller Llama 3-8B. We conclude that SEIDR effectively overcomes the near-miss syndrome in program synthesis with LLMs.

Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Software engineering coding agents, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 45 of its 87 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 10 Mar 2025.

Builds on

45 of 87 references.

Closest ancestors · 1

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2023Self-collaboration Code Generation via ChatGPT15 Apr

Other references · 44

  1. 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 59,932
  2. 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,199
  3. 2021Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Codecited by 8,053
  4. 2023Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learningcited by 4,064
  5. 2023Code Llama: Open Foundation Models for Codecited by 2,105
  6. 2022Competition-Level Code Generation with AlphaCodecited by 1,427
  7. 2023Is Your Code Generated by ChatGPT Really Correct? Rigorous Evaluation of Large Language Models for Code Generationcited by 1,332
  8. 2023Teaching Large Language Models to Self-Debugcited by 963
  9. 2021CodeXGLUE: A Machine Learning Benchmark Dataset for Code Understanding and Generationcited by 732
  10. 2023Instruction Tuning for Large Language Models: A Surveycited by 617
  11. 2020CodeBLEU: a Method for Automatic Evaluation of Code Synthesiscited by 468
  12. 2021Asleep at the Keyboard? Assessing the Security of GitHub Copilot's Code Contributionscited by 417
32 more
  1. 2019A Survey of Deep Learning Techniques for Autonomous Drivingcited by 401
  2. 2022A Systematic Evaluation of Large Language Models of Codecited by 360
  3. 2023CodeGeeX: A Pre-Trained Model for Code Generation with Multilingual Benchmarking on HumanEval-Xcited by 294
  4. 2017A Survey of Machine Learning for Big Code and Naturalnesscited by 220
  5. 2019SPoC: Search-based Pseudocode to Codecited by 176
  6. 2020Deep Learning based Vulnerability Detection: Are We There Yet?cited by 142
  7. 2022Large Language Models Meet NL2Code: A Surveycited by 135
  8. 2023Self-Taught Optimizer (STOP): Recursively Self-Improving Code Generationcited by 128
  9. 2023Self-Edit: Fault-Aware Code Editor for Code Generationcited by 110
  10. 2018Mapping Language to Code in Programmatic Contextcited by 104
  11. 2022CERT: Continual Pre-Training on Sketches for Library-Oriented Code Generationcited by 87
  12. 2019On-Device Machine Learning: An Algorithms and Learning Theory Perspectivecited by 63
  13. 2023Towards Better Chain-of-Thought Prompting Strategies: A Surveycited by 62
  14. 2023CodeTransOcean: A Comprehensive Multilingual Benchmark for Code Translationcited by 55
  15. 2023Algorithm Evolution Using Large Language Modelcited by 52
  16. 2020Synthesize, Execute and Debug: Learning to Repair for Neural Program Synthesiscited by 39
  17. 2020Random Walks: A Review of Algorithms and Applicationscited by 38
  18. 2021Latent Execution for Neural Program Synthesiscited by 35
  19. 2023Fully Autonomous Programming with Large Language Modelscited by 31
  20. 2021The Role of Explainability in Assuring Safety of Machine Learning in Healthcarecited by 26
  21. 2021Choose Your Programming Copilot: A Comparison of the Program Synthesis Performance of GitHub Copilot and Genetic Programmingcited by 24
  22. 2014Mining Idioms from Source Codecited by 19
  23. 2022Code Search: A Survey of Techniques for Finding Codecited by 18
  24. 2023CrossCodeBench: Benchmarking Cross-Task Generalization of Source Code Modelscited by 16
  25. 2023Exploring the Robustness of Large Language Models for Solving Programming Problemscited by 16
  26. 2018NAPS: Natural Program Synthesis Datasetcited by 14
  27. 2022Neurosymbolic Repair for Low-Code Formula Languagescited by 12
  28. 2021PSB2: The Second Program Synthesis Benchmark Suitecited by 9
  29. 2021Problem-solving benefits of down-sampled lexicase selectioncited by 8
  30. 2021Recent Developments in Program Synthesis with Evolutionary Algorithmscited by 5
  31. 2021Autoencoders as Tools for Program Synthesiscited by 4
  32. 2021BF++: a language for general-purpose program synthesiscited by 3

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2025: 1; 2026: 2.

3 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2025Enhancing LLM Code Generation: A Systematic Evaluation of Multi-Agent Collaboration and Runtime Debugging for Improved Accuracy, Reliability, and Latency
  2. 2026TraceCoder: A Trace-Driven Multi-Agent Framework for Automated Debugging of LLM-Generated Code
  3. 2024RGD: Multi-LLM Based Agent Debugger via Refinement and Generation Guidance
  4. 2024COAST: Enhancing the Code Debugging Ability of LLMs through Communicative Agent Based Data Synthesis
  5. 2025InspectCoder: Dynamic Analysis-Enabled Self Repair through interactive LLM-Debugger Collaboration
  6. 2026SelfHeal: Empirical Fix Pattern Analysis and Bug Repair in LLM Agents
  7. 2024Code Repair with LLMs gives an Exploration-Exploitation Tradeoff
  8. 2024MapCoder: Multi-Agent Code Generation for Competitive Problem Solving