Empowering Autonomous Debugging Agents with Efficient Dynamic Analysis
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Software engineering coding agents
Abstract (arXiv)
Autonomous agents for automated program repair represent a promising frontier in software engineering, yet their effectiveness is often hindered by reliance on post-mortem, coarse-grained execution feedback. While integrating traditional interactive debuggers seems a natural solution, their low-level, line-by-line interaction paradigm turns out to be cost-inefficient for LLM-based agents, leading to exhausted budgets and unproductive loops. To mitigate this, we introduce Agent-centric Debugging Interface (ADI), a novel agent-centric debugging interface designed for cost-efficient, end-to-end autonomous interaction. Specifically, Agent-centric Debugging Interface realizes a function-level interaction paradigm, powered by our Frame Lifetime Trace, a comprehensive data structure encapsulating a function's stateful execution trace, and a set of high-level navigational commands. Our extensive evaluation on the SWE-bench benchmark demonstrates the effectiveness and efficiency of ADI. By simply equipping a basic agent with ADI, it successfully resolves 63.8% of the tasks on the SWE-bench Verified set, even slightly outperforming the highly optimized and high-investment Claude-Tools agent, at an average cost of USD 1.28 per task with Claude-Sonnet-3.7. Furthermore, we demonstrate ADI's generality by integrating it as a plug-and-play component into existing SOTA agents, delivering consistent gains ranging from 6.2% to 18.5% on the resolved tasks. These results indicate that Agent-centric Debugging Interface can provide a general and efficient enhancement for existing autonomous agents.
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 32 of its 67 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 27 Apr 2026.
Builds on
32 of 67 references.
Closest ancestors · 12
Same direction, newest first
- 2026Evaluating and Improving Automated Repository-Level Rust Issue Resolution with LLM-based Agents26 Feb
- 2025SWE-smith: Scaling Data for Software Engineering Agents30 Apr
- 2025Agent That Debugs: Dynamic State-Guided Vulnerability Repair10 Apr
- 2025debug-gym: A Text-Based Environment for Interactive Debugging27 Mar
- 2025PatchPilot: A Cost-Efficient Software Engineering Agent with Early Attempts on Formal Verification4 Feb
- 2024Lingma SWE-GPT: An Open Development-Process-Centric Language Model for Automated Software Improvement1 Nov
- 2024Debug Smarter, Not Harder: AI Agents for Error Resolution in Computational Notebooks18 Oct
- 2024Large Language Model-Based Agents for Software Engineering: A Survey4 Sep
- 2024SpecRover: Code Intent Extraction via LLMs5 Aug
- 2024OpenHands: An Open Platform for AI Software Developers as Generalist Agents23 Jul
- 2024Agentless: Demystifying LLM-based Software Engineering Agents1 Jul
- 2024RepairAgent: An Autonomous, LLM-Based Agent for Program Repair25 Mar
Other references · 20
- 2022ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Modelscited by 8,355
- 2023Efficient Memory Management for Large Language Model Serving with PagedAttentioncited by 5,767
- 2023SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?cited by 3,193
- 2023Teaching Large Language Models to Self-Debugcited by 963
- 2023Can LLM Already Serve as A Database Interface? A BIg Bench for Large-Scale Database Grounded Text-to-SQLscited by 667
- 2023Large Language Models for Software Engineering: A Systematic Literature Reviewcited by 389
- 2022Grounded Copilot: How Programmers Interact with Code-Generating Modelscited by 216
- 2023Keep the Conversation Going: Fixing 162 out of 337 bugs for 0.42 each using ChatGPTcited by 125
- 2022Large Language Models are Few-shot Testers: Exploring LLM-based General Bug Reproductioncited by 110
- 2022Large Language Models are Zero-Shot Fuzzers: Fuzzing Deep-Learning Libraries via Large Language Modelscited by 102
- 2024EnIGMA: Interactive Tools Substantially Assist LM Agents in Finding Security Vulnerabilitiescited by 51
- 2023Explainable Automated Debugging via Large Language Model-driven Scientific Debuggingcited by 40
8 more
- 2024LLM4Decompile: Decompiling Binary Code with Large Language Modelscited by 38
- 2024How Far Can We Go with Practical Function-Level Program Repair?cited by 16
- 2024Prompt-based Code Completion via Multi-Retrieval Augmented Generationcited by 16
- 2024A Study on Developer Behaviors for Validating and Repairing LLM-Generated Code Using Eye Tracking and IDE Actionscited by 12
- 2025Decompile-Bench: Million-Scale Binary-Source Function Pairs for Real-World Binary Decompilationcited by 11
- 2024ChatDBG: Augmenting Debugging with Large Language Modelscited by 9
- 2025SK2Decompile: LLM-based Two-Phase Binary Decompilation from Skeleton to Skincited by 7
- 2023TraceFixer: Execution Trace-Driven Program Repaircited by 4
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2024UniDebugger: Hierarchical Multi-Agent Framework for Unified Software Debugging
- 2026DebugHarness: Emulating Human Dynamic Debugging for Autonomous Program Repair
- 2025InspectCoder: Dynamic Analysis-Enabled Self Repair through interactive LLM-Debugger Collaboration
- 2026AgentStepper: Interactive Debugging of Software Development Agents
- 2026Debug2Fix: Can Interactive Debugging Help Coding Agents Fix More Bugs?
- 2025Understanding Automated Program Repair Agents Through the Lens of Traceability: An Empirical Study
- 2025Interactive Debugging and Steering of Multi-Agent AI Systems
- 2026AgentDebugX: An Open-Source Toolkit for Failure Observability, Attribution, and Recovery in LLM Agents