mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Same Signal, Different Semantics: A Cross-Framework Behavioral Analysis of Software Engineering Agents

arXiv 2605.18332 ↗First posted 18 May 2026cs.SE cs.AIcited by 4

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

Abstract (arXiv)

Behavioral studies of LLM-based software engineering agents extract operational rules about which trajectory shapes correlate with higher resolution rates: that a test step follows a code modification, that error cascades are short, or that trajectories are compact. Each rule is typically derived from a single framework, and whether it transfers, in sign as well as magnitude, to structurally different agent designs has not been directly tested. We address this at ecosystem scale: 64,380 SWE-bench runs from 126 agent configurations spanning 43 frameworks, where each configuration pairs an LLM with a framework (e.g., SWE-Agent, OpenHands) that supplies its tools and workflow. We separate framework effects from LLM effects by holding each layer fixed in turn, then measure one behavior-outcome effect per configuration and examine how those effects agree or disagree. Swapping the framework while the LLM is held fixed produces large behavioral differences in every action feature. On most signals, configurations disagree not merely in magnitude but in direction. Error rate is the cleanest case: 47 configurations resolve more issues when their error rate is lower, while 48 resolve more when it is higher. Five other continuous features and three of seven binary patterns from prior SE literature show similar directional disagreement. Framework identity accounts for more of this variation than LLM family: for mean turns, framework explains 64% of the between-configuration variance against the LLM's 10%. The implication is that the same observable behavioral signal can carry opposite meaning for different agent configurations. Behavioral findings from any single framework therefore warrant cross-configuration validation before being claimed as general.

Key facts. Cited by 4 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 6 of its 30 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 18 May 2026.

Builds on

6 of 30 references.

Closest ancestors · 4

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2025A Comprehensive Empirical Evaluation of Agent Frameworks on Code-centric Software Engineering Tasks2 Nov
  2. 2025Understanding Code Agent Behaviour: An Empirical Study of Success and Failure Trajectories31 Oct
  3. 2025Understanding Software Engineering Agents: A Study of Thought-Action-Result Trajectories23 Jun
  4. 2024OpenHands: An Open Platform for AI Software Developers as Generalist Agents23 Jul

Other references · 2

  1. 2023SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?cited by 3,193
  2. 2025SWE-Bench Pro: Can AI Agents Solve Long-Horizon Software Engineering Tasks?cited by 254

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 4.

4 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Toward Architecture-Aware Evaluation Metrics for LLM Agents
  2. 2026Beyond Resolution Rates: Behavioral Drivers of Coding Agent Success and Failure
  3. 2026Projecting the Emerging Mindset of SWE Agent by Launching a Wild Code Understanding Journey
  4. 2026Rethinking the Value of Agent-Generated Tests for LLM-Based Software Engineering Agents
  5. 2026Understanding Agent-Reactive Bugs at the Model-Harness Boundary: An Empirical Study of LLM Agent Issue Reports
  6. 2026How Do Practitioners Build SE Agents? Insights from a Mixed-Methods Study
  7. 2025From Correctness to Collaboration: Toward a Human-Centered Framework for Evaluating AI Agent Behavior in Software Engineering
  8. 2026SWE-Router: Routing in Multi-turn Agentic Software Engineering Tasks