# ExplainBench: Evaluating Code Explanations from Agents

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.26451 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.26451/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Software engineering coding agents, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use.
- Builds on 19 of its 49 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 29 Jul 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, 19 of 19)

- [Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05685/) (2023)
- [OpenHands: An Open Platform for AI Software Developers as Generalist Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.16741/) (2024)
- [From Crowdsourced Data to High-Quality Benchmarks: Arena-Hard and BenchBuilder Pipeline](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.11939/) (2024)
- [Multi-SWE-bench: A Multilingual Benchmark for Issue Resolving](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.02605/) (2025)
- [SWT-Bench: Testing and Validating Real-World Bug-Fixes with Code Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.12952/) (2024)
- [DSBench: How Far Are Data Science Agents from Becoming Data Science Experts?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.07703/) (2024)
- [Trae Agent: An LLM-based Agent for Software Engineering with Test-time Scaling](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.23370/) (2025)
- [SWE-PolyBench: A multi-language benchmark for repository level evaluation of coding agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.08703/) (2025)
- [SpecRover: Code Intent Extraction via LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.02232/) (2024)
- [You Name It, I Run It: An LLM Agent to Execute Tests of Arbitrary Projects](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.10133/) (2024)
- [Reasoning Runtime Behavior of a Program with LLM: How Far Are We?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.16437/) (2024)
- [Top Score on the Wrong Exam: On Benchmarking in Machine Learning for Vulnerability Detection](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.12986/) (2024)
- [GitTaskBench: A Benchmark for Code Agents Solving Real-World Tasks Through Code Repository Leveraging](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.18993/) (2025)
- [Trust Enhancement Issues in Program Repair](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2108.13064/) (2021)
- [Unified Software Engineering Agent as AI Software Engineer](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.14683/) (2025)
- [SWE-Bench-CL: Continual Learning for Coding Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.00014/) (2025)
- [Lingxi: Repository-Level Issue Resolution Framework Enhanced by Procedural Knowledge Guided Scaling](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.11838/) (2025)
- [Generative AI for Pull Request Descriptions: Adoption, Impact, and Developer Interventions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.08967/) (2024)
- [Towards Explainable Vulnerability Detection with Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.09701/) (2024)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Large Language Model (LLM) agents have seen rapid adoption in software engineering. As agents take a greater role in the actual generation of code, they are making larger changes, spanning tens to hundreds of lines. This makes manual review of agent results increasingly infeasible, leading developers to turn to explanations to understand enacted changes. Despite this, there are no benchmarks that evaluate the trustworthiness of agent-generated explanations. To bridge this gap, we propose ExplainBench, a benchmark to automatically evaluate explanations from coding agents. ExplainBench is based on the intuition that informative explanations should enable an LLM to correctly answer questions, allowing quantitative comparison of explanation quality between agents. With this observation, we construct a suite of questions that evaluates whether explanations accurately describe (1) the intended behavior of buggy code and (2) the effect of applying the agent patch itself. Experiments first reveal that explanation quality is a distinct axis of agent evaluation: ExplainBench ranks agents differently from the widely-used SWE-bench Verified benchmark. A deeper breakdown of explanation quality in agents shows frequent problems in explanations, such that explanations often claim that a patch is correct when it is not. Based on this insight, we implement and evaluate an explanation audit agent which runs additional tests to validate and refine explanations. This agent improved the explanations of all evaluated agents, demonstrating agent explanations can be automatically made more trustworthy.