What Process Evaluation of Coding Agents Actually Measures: Action, Task, and Step Are Three Different Levels
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Software engineering coding agents
Abstract (arXiv)
Coding agents are increasingly evaluated not only by whether they solve a task, but also by how they execute it. However, existing process-level evaluations often treat action prediction, task uncertainty, and step attribution as if they were the same problem, which makes it unclear what such evaluations actually measure. In this paper, we introduce a measurement framework for process evaluation in coding agents and instantiate step-level causal attribution with SCAE, a replay-based estimator derived from a structural causal model of agent execution. Our framework combines prefix-conditioned identification, replay/intervention-based estimation, and controlled judge-information manipulation to study process evaluation at the action, task, and step levels. Experiments on 499 file-localization episodes from 12 repositories show that next actions are driven primarily by execution provenance rather than code-graph transitions, execution uncertainty is structured at the task rather than step level, and full-trace judges exhibit systematic collider bias, suggesting that current process evaluation often measures semantic relevance rather than certified causal contribution.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Software engineering coding agents, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 29 of its 38 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 24 Aug 2026.
Builds on
29 of 38 references.
Closest ancestors · 4
Same direction, newest first
- 2026ProcCtrlBench: Evaluating Process-Level Defects and Control Preservation in LLM Coding Agents18 May
- 2026Seeing the Whole Elephant: A Benchmark for Failure Attribution in LLM-based Multi-Agent Systems24 Apr
- 2025AgenTracer: Who Is Inducing Failure in the LLM Agentic Systems?3 Sep
- 2024Agentless: Demystifying LLM-based Software Engineering Agents1 Jul
Other references · 25
- 2023Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arenacited by 8,393
- 2024From Local to Global: A Graph RAG Approach to Query-Focused Summarizationcited by 1,411
- 2023Math-Shepherd: Verify and Reinforce LLMs Step-by-step without Human Annotationscited by 895
- 2026Terminal-Bench: Benchmarking Agents on Hard, Realistic Tasks in Command Line Interfacescited by 515
- 2024TheAgentCompany: Benchmarking LLM Agents on Consequential Real World Taskscited by 306
- 2024Rewarding Progress: Scaling Automated Process Verifiers for LLM Reasoningcited by 267
- 2018RUDDER: Return Decomposition for Delayed Rewardscited by 162
- 2024Calibrating Large Language Models Using Their Generations Onlycited by 63
- 2025The Ideation-Execution Gap: Execution Outcomes of LLM-Generated versus Human Research Ideascited by 49
- 2024MegaAgent: A Large-Scale Autonomous LLM-based Multi-Agent System Without Predefined SOPscited by 45
- 2024TokenSHAP: Interpreting Large Language Models with Monte Carlo Shapley Value Estimationcited by 41
- 2025STeCa: Step-level Trajectory Calibration for LLM Agent Learningcited by 37
13 more
- 2025Calibrating LLM Confidence by Probing Perturbed Representation Stabilitycited by 23
- 2024Deep Bayesian Active Learning for Preference Modeling in Large Language Modelscited by 19
- 2026LLM Reasoning as Trajectories: Step-Specific Representation Geometry and Correctness Signalscited by 18
- 2025Trained on Tokens, Calibrated on Concepts: The Emergence of Semantic Calibration in LLMscited by 17
- 2026MEMENTO: Teaching LLMs to Manage Their Own Contextcited by 16
- 2025RLHS: Mitigating Misalignment in RLHF with Hindsight Simulationcited by 15
- 2024Counterfactual Token Generation in Large Language Modelscited by 14
- 2025Linking Process to Outcome: Conditional Reward Modeling for LLM Reasoningcited by 14
- 2026InT: Self-Proposed Interventions Enable Credit Assignment in LLM Reasoningcited by 14
- 2024Gumbel Counterfactual Generation From Language Modelscited by 13
- 2025Influences on LLM Calibration: A Study of Response Agreement, Loss Functions, and Prompt Stylescited by 12
- 2025Textual Bayes: Quantifying Prompt Uncertainty in LLM-Based Systemscited by 8
- 2025KnowThyself: An Agentic Assistant for LLM Interpretabilitycited by 5
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Learning When and How to Intervene: A Hindsight-Distilled Sentinel for Coding Agents
- 2026What Resolve Rate Hides: Trajectory Structure Diagnostics for Coding Agents
- 2026Counsel: A Meta-Evaluation Dataset for Agentic Tasks
- 2026Before They Can Solve: Predicting Post-Training Coding-Agent Performance from Base Models
- 2026On Randomness in Agentic Evals
- 2026ParanoiaEval: Benchmarking Unnecessary Defensive Work in Agentic Coding
- 2026Where Did It Go Wrong? Process-Level Evaluation of Web Agents with Semantic State Tracking
- 2026BenchShield: Formal Model-Backed Instrumentation for Reward Integrity in LLM-Agent Evaluation Infrastructure