RevengeBench: Reverse Engineering Code-Space Policies from Behavioral Experiments

A Jagged Frontier: Evaluating Robustness of Code Agents to Semantics-Preserving Transformations

AI code agents are increasingly deployed to resolve real software issues, yet their reliability under superficial code variations remains poorly understood. We evaluate whether coding agents that repair repository-level issues remain reliable when the surrounding codebase is rewritten into a semantically equivalent form. We introduce a random variant sampler that applies common semantics-preserving transformations (SPTs) - spanning control-flow rewrites, dead-code injection, and identifier renaming - to produce perturbed variants. We evaluate two agentic scaffolds (mini-SWE agent and OpenCode) each backed by one of four frontier models (Claude Opus 4.5, Kimi K2.5, MiniMax M2.5, and Qwen 3.6-27B) across instances drawn from SWE-bench Verified and SWE-bench Pro. For each instance, the agent is run multiple times on the unperturbed and perturbed variants, yielding paired resolve-rate estimates that isolate the perturbation effect from intrinsic stochasticity. We find small degradation in most configurations: up to 6.7 percentage points mean resolve-rate drop in the most affected configurations with statistically significant degradations in 6 of 16 configurations of model, scaffold, and dataset. Crucially, no single model ranking by robustness holds across scaffolds - Qwen is among the most robust under mini-SWE agent on SWE-bench Verified yet the most brittle under OpenCode - revealing a jagged robustness frontier. The simpler scaffold (mini-SWE agent) is more robust to perturbation. Our results demonstrate that even top frontier models are susceptible to semantics-preserving perturbations although the effect is not uniform, raising concerns about the deployment reliability of AI code agents in diverse real-world codebases.

Praxist: From Experimental Artifacts to Solution Lineages

Autonomous R\&D agents now write, run, and improve executable artifacts under automated evaluation---but largely as laboratory instruments: shown on curated benchmarks, with gains that are hard to trace to a cause and costs well above what sustained engineering practice absorbs. The limitation is structural. Most systems treat each attempt as nearly self-contained, so logs, memories, and search trees record what happened without establishing which design element produced an improvement, whether its evidence survived validation, or how it recombines with others. Long campaigns therefore keep re-learning the same lessons. We introduce Praxist, a lineage-centered generational system that converts reproducible artifacts and evaluator outcomes into a typed evidence graph of findings, lane-structured frontiers, and agendas. Separating local artifact construction from cohort-level evidence synthesis lets later attempts inherit validated mechanisms, unresolved claims, and useful constraints, and leaves results attached to an inspectable lineage. On the standardized 75-task MLE-bench suite, the finalized official-grader results give Praxist 60 medals (80.0\%), 49 of them gold, against 55 medals (73.3\%) and 34 gold for a Claude Code baseline on Claude Opus 4.8---at a recorded model spend of US\$3,054 versus US\$38,370, roughly a twelfth of the cost. Four case studies---quantitative trading, LiDAR-inertial-visual SLAM, tokamak magnetic control, and rocket landing---carry the same process into open-ended engineering problems, improving on each task-native baseline in headline accuracy, survival, or resource cost, with the discovery path on record. Stronger artifacts at an order of magnitude less spend, each backed by an auditable lineage, are, to our knowledge, first brought together here: the operating profile production research requires, not the one a benchmark demonstration establishes.

What Resolve Rate Hides: Trajectory Structure Diagnostics for Coding Agents

Coding agents are ranked almost entirely by resolve rate: whether their final patch passes the target tests. Yet two agents can reach the same outcome through very different processes, and a single pass/fail label says nothing about why a run failed or why an accepted run spent extra steps, time, or tokens. This process evidence lives in the trajectory, which records a run's searches, reads, edits, tool calls, validation, and reversions. However, raw traces are heterogeneous and hard to compare across runs. We present TraceProbe, a trajectory-diagnostic framework that recovers what resolve rate hides. TraceProbe normalizes each raw run into a canonical nine-type action taxonomy with deterministic effect labels, then applies two rule-based modules: Insight names single-trajectory anti-patterns adapted from established debugging practice (e.g., search loops, verification skips), while Converge aligns pairs of runs and classifies where their behavior diverges under controlled references. Applying TraceProbe to 2,500 trajectories from five production settings on SWE-Bench Verified, we find that (i) file choice is too coarse to separate success from failure, whereas function selection and completion behavior localize it; (ii) Insight anti-patterns act mainly as corpus-level difficulty clues, with search loops the most stable; and (iii) even resolved runs differ in how quickly they reach relevant code and how much failed work they incur. Trajectory structure thus adds auditable diagnostic context to outcomes by localizing inspection targets, suggesting failure hypotheses, and prioritizing runs for review.

One Recipe, Many Harnesses: What Self-Evolution Encodes Across Languages and Models

Together, these results recast the evolved harness as a legible compensation layer, shaped jointly by the language's engineering demands and the model's behavioral gaps, rather than an opaque benchmark-tuned scaffold.

Learning Interpretable Code Explanations of LLM Behavior

Beyond Execution: Auditing Experimental Fidelity in LLM-Driven Scientific Research

LLM agents used for scientific experimentation must do more than generate executable code: they must implement the reference method faithfully, design experiments that test the paper's claims, and provide evidence supporting those claims. We show that agents often produce methodological hallucinations: silently reducing datasets or training budgets, replacing failed learning or generative components with lookup or oracle functions, or drawing conclusions from resource-limited settings where a method's claimed advantage disappears. To detect these failures, we introduce ABE-Ralph, a reference-anchored auditing framework that represents claims, protocols, required components, baselines, and metrics as structured experimental constraints, guides implementation through an 8-step workflow, and performs quantitative, qualitative, and code-level verification. Across 30 long-horizon reproduction runs covering 12 machine learning domains, ABE-Ralph achieves a 93% robust execution rate and identifies five scientific failure modes. In 23 NatureBench discovery tasks, ABE-Ralph matches or exceeds state-of-the-art performance on 5 tasks. These results show that reliable evaluation of AI scientists must assess whether the experimental design faithfully tests the intended claim and whether the resulting evidence supports it, rather than treating code execution or plausible metrics as evidence of scientific success.