Reproducible, Explainable, and Effective Evaluations of Agentic AI for Software Engineering
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Software engineering coding agents
Abstract (arXiv)
With the advancement of Agentic AI, researchers are increasingly leveraging autonomous agents to address challenges in software engineering (SE). However, the large language models (LLMs) that underpin these agents often function as black boxes, making it difficult to justify the superiority of Agentic AI approaches over baselines. Furthermore, missing information in the evaluation design description frequently renders the reproduction of results infeasible. To synthesize current evaluation practices for Agentic AI in SE, this study analyzes 18 papers on the topic, published or accepted by ICSE 2026, ICSE 2025, FSE 2025, ASE 2025, and ISSTA 2025. The analysis identifies prevailing approaches and their limitations in evaluating Agentic AI for SE, both in current research and potential future studies. To address these shortcomings, this position paper proposes a set of guidelines and recommendations designed to empower reproducible, explainable, and effective evaluations of Agentic AI in software engineering. In particular, we recommend that Agentic AI researchers make their Thought-Action-Result (TAR) trajectories and LLM interaction data, or summarized versions of these artifacts, publicly accessible. Doing so will enable subsequent studies to more effectively analyze the strengths and weaknesses of different Agentic AI approaches. To demonstrate the feasibility of such comparisons, we present a proof-of-concept case study that illustrates how TAR trajectories can support systematic analysis across approaches.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper 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 13 of its 25 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 1 Apr 2026.
Builds on
13 of 25 references.
Closest ancestors · 12
Same direction, newest first
- 2025Imitation Game: Reproducing Deep Learning Bugs Leveraging an Intelligent Agent17 Dec
- 2025Agentic Specification Generator for Move Programs29 Sep
- 2025An LLM-based multi-agent framework for agile effort estimation17 Sep
- 2025An LLM Agentic Approach for Legal-Critical Software: A Case Study for Tax Prep Software16 Sep
- 2025Understanding Software Engineering Agents: A Study of Thought-Action-Result Trajectories23 Jun
- 2025CXXCrafter: An LLM-Based Agent for Automated C/C++ Open Source Software Building27 May
- 2025Are Autonomous Web Agents Good Testers?2 Apr
- 2025Agents in the Sandbox: End-to-End Crash Bug Reproduction for Minecraft25 Mar
- 2025Beyond Final Code: A Process-Oriented Error Analysis of Software Development Agents in Real-World GitHub Scenarios16 Mar
- 2024You Name It, I Run It: An LLM Agent to Execute Tests of Arbitrary Projects13 Dec
- 2024A Multi-Agent Approach for REST API Testing with Semantic Graphs and LLM-Driven Inputs11 Nov
- 2024RepairAgent: An Autonomous, LLM-Based Agent for Program Repair25 Mar
Other references · 1
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Agentic AI in the Software Development Lifecycle: Architecture, Empirical Evidence, and the Reshaping of Software Engineering
- 2026Agentic Software: How AI Agents Are Restructuring the Software Paradigm
- 2026Rethinking Software Engineering for Agentic AI Systems
- 2026A Research Agenda on Agents and Software Engineering: Outcomes from the Rio A2SE Seminar
- 2026Assistance to Autonomy: A Systematic Literature Review of Agentic AI across the Software Development Life Cycle
- 2025Toward Agentic Software Engineering Beyond Code: Framing Vision, Values, and Vocabulary
- 2026LLM-Based Agentic Systems for Software Engineering: Challenges and Opportunities
- 2025From Correctness to Collaboration: Toward a Human-Centered Framework for Evaluating AI Agent Behavior in Software Engineering