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

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.18332 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.18332/

## Key facts

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

## Placed in

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

## Builds on (most cited first, 6 of 6)

- [SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.06770/) (2023)
- [OpenHands: An Open Platform for AI Software Developers as Generalist Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.16741/) (2024)
- [SWE-Bench Pro: Can AI Agents Solve Long-Horizon Software Engineering Tasks?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.16941/) (2025)
- [Understanding Software Engineering Agents: A Study of Thought-Action-Result Trajectories](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.18824/) (2025)
- [Understanding Code Agent Behaviour: An Empirical Study of Success and Failure Trajectories](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2511.00197/) (2025)
- [A Comprehensive Empirical Evaluation of Agent Frameworks on Code-centric Software Engineering Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2511.00872/) (2025)

## Built on by (most cited first, 4 of 4)

- [SkillForge: Self-Distilling Agents for Project-Specific Issue Resolution](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.18933/) (2026)
- [IACM-RL: Intent-Aware Context Management and Reinforcement Learning for Complex Tool Invocation under Dynamic Intent Fluctuations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.02110/) (2026)
- [Validation Evidence in LLM Repair Agents: How Much of What Passes Actually Tests the Bug?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.28871/) (2026)
- [Schr"odinger's Code Repository: Have LLMs Learned SWE-bench or Memorized It?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.27891/) (2026)

## 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.