A Survey of Vibe Coding with Large Language Models

The advancement of large language models (LLMs) has catalyzed a paradigm shift from code generation assistance to autonomous coding agents, enabling a novel development methodology termed "Vibe Coding" where developers validate AI-generated implementations through outcome observation rather than line-by-line code comprehension. Despite its transformative potential, the effectiveness of this emergent paradigm remains under-explored, with empirical evidence revealing unexpected productivity losses and fundamental challenges in human-AI collaboration. To address this gap, this survey provides the first comprehensive and systematic review of Vibe Coding with large language models, establishing both theoretical foundations and practical frameworks for this transformative development approach. Drawing from systematic analysis of over 1000 research papers, we survey the entire vibe coding ecosystem, examining critical infrastructure components including LLMs for coding, LLM-based coding agent, development environment of coding agent, and feedback mechanisms. We first introduce Vibe Coding as a formal discipline by formalizing it through a Constrained Markov Decision Process that captures the dynamic triadic relationship among human developers, software projects, and coding agents. Building upon this theoretical foundation, we then synthesize existing practices into five distinct development models: Unconstrained Automation, Iterative Conversational Collaboration, Planning-Driven, Test-Driven, and Context-Enhanced Models, thus providing the first comprehensive taxonomy in this domain. Critically, our analysis reveals that successful Vibe Coding depends not merely on agent capabilities but on systematic context engineering, well-established development environments, and human-agent collaborative development models.

Stop Spinning Wheels: Mitigating LLM Overthinking via Mining Patterns for Early Reasoning Exit

Large language models (LLMs) enhance complex reasoning tasks by scaling the individual thinking process. However, prior work shows that overthinking can degrade overall performance. Motivated by observed patterns in thinking length and content length, we categorize reasoning into three stages: insufficient exploration stage, compensatory reasoning stage, and reasoning convergence stage. Typically, LLMs produce correct answers in the compensatory reasoning stage, whereas reasoning convergence often triggers overthinking, causing increased resource usage or even infinite loops. Therefore, mitigating overthinking hinges on detecting the end of the compensatory reasoning stage, defined as the Reasoning Completion Point (RCP). RCP typically appears at the end of the first complete reasoning cycle and can be identified by querying the LLM sentence by sentence or monitoring the probability of an end-of-thinking token (e.g., \texttt{</think>}), though these methods lack an efficient and precise balance. To improve this, we mine more sensitive and consistent RCP patterns and develop a lightweight thresholding strategy based on heuristic rules. Experimental evaluations on benchmarks (AIME24, AIME25, GPQA-D) demonstrate that the proposed method reduces token consumption while preserving or enhancing reasoning accuracy.

Related Knowledge Perturbation Matters: Rethinking Multiple Pieces of Knowledge Editing in Same-Subject

Knowledge editing has become a promising approach for efficiently and precisely updating knowledge embedded in large language models (LLMs). In this work, we focus on Same-Subject Editing, which involves modifying multiple attributes of a single entity to ensure comprehensive and consistent updates to entity-centric knowledge. Through preliminary observation, we identify a significant challenge: Current state-of-the-art editing methods struggle when tasked with editing multiple related knowledge pieces for the same subject. To address the lack of relevant editing data for identical subjects in traditional benchmarks, we introduce the $\text{S}^2\text{RKE}$(Same-Subject Related Knowledge Editing) benchmark. Our extensive experiments reveal that only mainstream locate-then-edit methods, such as ROME and MEMIT, exhibit "related knowledge perturbation," where subsequent edits interfere with earlier ones. Further analysis reveals that these methods over-rely on subject information, neglecting other critical factors, resulting in reduced editing effectiveness.