LLM-Based Agentic Systems for Software Engineering: Challenges and Opportunities

Despite recent advancements in Large Language Models (LLMs), complex Software Engineering (SE) tasks require more collaborative and specialized approaches. This concept paper systematically reviews the emerging paradigm of LLM-based multi-agent systems, examining their applications across the Software Development Life Cycle (SDLC), from requirements engineering and code generation to static code checking, testing, and debugging. We delve into a wide range of topics such as language model selection, SE evaluation benchmarks, state-of-the-art agentic frameworks and communication protocols. Furthermore, we identify key challenges and outline future research opportunities, with a focus on multi-agent orchestration, human-agent coordination, computational cost optimization, and effective data collection. This work aims to provide researchers and practitioners with valuable insights into the current forefront landscape of agentic systems within the software engineering domain.

Measuring the State of Open Science in Transportation Using Large Language Models

Open science initiatives have strengthened scientific integrity and accelerated research progress across many fields, but the state of their practice within transportation research remains under-investigated. Key features of open science, defined here as data and code availability, are difficult to extract due to the inherent complexity of the field. Previous work has either been limited to small-scale studies due to the labor-intensive nature of manual analysis or has relied on large-scale bibliometric approaches that sacrifice contextual richness. This paper introduces an automatic and scalable feature-extraction pipeline to measure data and code availability in transportation research. We employ Large Language Models (LLMs) for this task and validate their performance against a manually curated dataset and through an inter-rater agreement analysis. We applied this pipeline to examine 10,724 research articles published in the Transportation Research Part series of journals between 2019 and 2024. Our analysis found that only 5% of quantitative papers shared a code repository, 4% of quantitative papers shared a data repository, and about 3% of papers shared both, with trends differing across journals, topics, and geographic regions. We found no significant difference in citation counts or review duration between papers that provided data and code and those that did not, suggesting a misalignment between open science efforts and traditional academic metrics. Consequently, encouraging these practices will likely require structural interventions from journals and funding agencies to supplement the lack of direct author incentives. The pipeline developed in this study can be readily scaled to other journals, representing a critical step toward the automated measurement and monitoring of open science practices in transportation research.

PRL: Process Reward Learning Improves LLMs' Reasoning Ability and Broadens the Reasoning Boundary

Improving the reasoning abilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) has been a continuous topic recently. But most relevant works are based on outcome rewards at the trajectory level, missing fine-grained supervision during the reasoning process. Other existing training frameworks that try to combine process signals together to optimize LLMs also rely heavily on tedious additional steps like MCTS, training a separate reward model, etc., doing harm to the training efficiency. Moreover, the intuition behind the process signals design lacks rigorous theoretical support, leaving the understanding of the optimization mechanism opaque. In this paper, we propose Process Reward Learning (PRL), which decomposes the entropy regularized reinforcement learning objective into intermediate steps, with rigorous process rewards that could be assigned to models accordingly. Starting from theoretical motivation, we derive the formulation of PRL that is essentially equivalent to the objective of reward maximization plus a KL-divergence penalty term between the policy model and a reference model. However, PRL could turn the outcome reward into process supervision signals, which helps better guide the exploration during RL optimization. From our experiment results, we demonstrate that PRL not only improves the average performance for LLMs' reasoning ability measured by average @ n, but also broadens the reasoning boundary by improving the pass @ n metric. Extensive experiments show the effectiveness of PRL could be verified and generalized.

AI-exhibited Personality Traits Can Shape Human Self-concept through Conversations

Recent Large Language Model (LLM) based AI can exhibit recognizable and measurable personality traits during conversations to improve user experience. However, as human understandings of their personality traits can be affected by their interaction partners' traits, a potential risk is that AI traits may shape and bias users' self-concept of their own traits. To explore the possibility, we conducted a randomized behavioral experiment. Our results indicate that after conversations about personal topics with an LLM-based AI chatbot using GPT-4o default personality traits, users' self-concepts aligned with the AI's measured personality traits. The longer the conversation, the greater the alignment. This alignment led to increased homogeneity in self-concepts among users. We also observed that the degree of self-concept alignment was positively associated with users' conversation enjoyment. Our findings uncover how AI personality traits can shape users' self-concepts through human-AI conversation, highlighting both risks and opportunities. We provide important design implications for developing more responsible and ethical AI systems.

From Quotes to Concepts: Axial Coding of Political Debates with Ensemble LMs

Axial coding is a commonly used qualitative analysis method that enhances document understanding by organizing sentence-level open codes into broader categories. In this paper, we operationalize axial coding with large language models (LLMs). Extending an ensemble-based open coding approach with an LLM moderator, we add an axial coding step that groups open codes into higher-order categories, transforming raw debate transcripts into concise, hierarchical representations. We compare two strategies: (i) clustering embeddings of code-utterance pairs using density-based and partitioning algorithms followed by LLM labeling, and (ii) direct LLM-based grouping of codes and utterances into categories. We apply our method to Dutch parliamentary debates, converting lengthy transcripts into compact, hierarchically structured codes and categories. We evaluate our method using extrinsic metrics aligned with human-assigned topic labels (ROUGE-L, cosine, BERTScore), and intrinsic metrics describing code groups (coverage, brevity, coherence, novelty, JSD divergence). Our results reveal a trade-off: density-based clustering achieves high coverage and strong cluster alignment, while direct LLM grouping results in higher fine-grained alignment, but lower coverage 20%. Overall, clustering maximizes coverage and structural separation, whereas LLM grouping produces more concise, interpretable, and semantically aligned categories. To support future research, we publicly release the full dataset of utterances and codes, enabling reproducibility and comparative studies.

MVSS: A Unified Framework for Multi-View Structured Survey Generation

Scientific surveys require not only summarizing large bodies of literature, but also organizing them into clear and coherent conceptual structures. Existing automatic survey generation methods typically focus on linear text generation and struggle to explicitly model hierarchical relations among research topics and structured methodological comparisons, resulting in gaps in structural organization compared to expert-written surveys. We propose MVSS, a multi-view structured survey generation framework that jointly generates and aligns citation-grounded hierarchical trees, structured comparison tables, and survey text. MVSS follows a structure-first paradigm: it first constructs a conceptual tree of the research domain, then generates comparison tables constrained by the tree, and finally uses both as structural constraints for text generation. This enables complementary multi-view representations across structure, comparison, and narrative. We introduce an evaluation framework assessing structural quality, comparative completeness, and citation fidelity. Experiments on 76 computer science topics show MVSS outperforms existing methods in organization and evidence grounding, achieving performance comparable to expert surveys.

Can Deep Research Agents Find and Organize? Evaluating the Synthesis Gap with Expert Taxonomies

Deep Research Agents are increasingly used for automated survey generation. However, whether they can write surveys like human experts remains unclear. Existing benchmarks focus on fluency or citation accuracy, but none evaluates the core capabilities: retrieving essential papers and organizing them into coherent knowledge structures. We introduce TaxoBench, a diagnostic benchmark derived from 72 highly-cited computer science surveys. We manually extract expert-authored taxonomy trees containing 3,815 precisely categorized citations as ground truth. Our benchmark supports two evaluation modes: Deep Research mode tests end-to-end retrieval and organization given only a topic, while Bottom-Up mode isolates structuring capability by providing the exact papers human experts used. We evaluate 7 leading Deep Research agents and 12 frontier LLMs. Results reveal a dual bottleneck: the best agent recalls only 20.9% of expert-selected papers, and even with perfect input, the best model achieves only 0.31 ARI in organization. Current deep research agents remain far from expert-level survey writing. Our benchmark is publicly available at https://github.com/KongLongGeFDU/TaxoBench.

CLaS-Bench: A Cross-Lingual Alignment and Steering Benchmark

Understanding and controlling the behavior of large language models (LLMs) is an increasingly important topic in multilingual NLP. Beyond prompting or fine-tuning, , i.e.,~manipulating internal representations during inference, has emerged as a more efficient and interpretable technique for adapting models to a target language. Yet, no dedicated benchmarks or evaluation protocols exist to quantify the effectiveness of steering techniques. We introduce CLaS-Bench, a lightweight parallel-question benchmark for evaluating language-forcing behavior in LLMs across 32 languages, enabling systematic evaluation of multilingual steering methods. We evaluate a broad array of steering techniques, including residual-stream DiffMean interventions, probe-derived directions, language-specific neurons, PCA/LDA vectors, Sparse Autoencoders, and prompting baselines. Steering performance is measured along two axes: language control and semantic relevance, combined into a single harmonic-mean steering score. We find that across languages simple residual-based DiffMean method consistently outperforms all other methods. Moreover, a layer-wise analysis reveals that language-specific structure emerges predominantly in later layers and steering directions cluster based on language family. CLaS-Bench is the first standardized benchmark for multilingual steering, enabling both rigorous scientific analysis of language representations and practical evaluation of steering as a low-cost adaptation alternative.

Universal computation is intrinsic to language model decoding

Language models now provide an interface to express and often solve general problems in natural language, yet their ultimate computational capabilities remain a major topic of scientific debate. Unlike a formal computer, a language model is trained to autoregressively predict successive elements in human-generated text. We prove that chaining a language model's autoregressive output is sufficient to perform universal computation. That is, a language model can simulate the execution of any algorithm on any input. The challenge of eliciting desired computational behaviour can thus be reframed in terms of programmability: the ease of finding a suitable prompt. Strikingly, we demonstrate that even randomly initialized language models are capable of universal computation before training. This implies that training does not give rise to computational expressiveness -- rather, it improves programmability, enabling a natural language interface for accessing these intrinsic capabilities.

SAD: A Large-Scale Strategic Argumentative Dialogue Dataset

Argumentation generation has attracted substantial research interest due to its central role in human reasoning and decision-making. However, most existing argumentative corpora focus on non-interactive, single-turn settings, either generating arguments from a given topic or refuting an existing argument. In practice, however, argumentation is often realized as multi-turn dialogue, where speakers defend their stances and employ diverse argumentative strategies to strengthen persuasiveness. To support deeper modeling of argumentation dialogue, we present the first large-scale \textbf{S}trategic \textbf{A}rgumentative \textbf{D}ialogue dataset, SAD, consisting of 392,822 examples. Grounded in argumentation theories, we annotate each utterance with five strategy types, allowing multiple strategies per utterance. Unlike prior datasets, SAD requires models to generate contextually appropriate arguments conditioned on the dialogue history, a specified stance on the topic, and targeted argumentation strategies. We further benchmark a range of pretrained generative models on SAD and present in-depth analysis of strategy usage patterns in argumentation.