Satish Chandra

Ferida Mohammed, Fatma Ayad, Petros Maniatis et al.

Programmers are turning to AI coding assistants to answer questions about their code. Benchmarks are needed to soundly evaluate these systems and understand their performance. To enable such a study, we curate a benchmark of real-world contextualized questions derived from Github pull request comments. Out of this work, we present RubberDuckBench: a multilingual benchmark of questions about code, along with detailed rubrics for evaluating answers. We evaluate a diverse set of 20 LLMs (proprietary & open-source) on answering these questions. We find that even state of the art models fail to give consistent, correct responses across the benchmark. Grok 4 (69.29%), Claude Opus 4 (68.5%), and GPT-5 (67.8%) perform best overall, but do not exhibit pairwise significant superiority over the next 9 best performing models. Most models obtain points through partial credit, with the best performing models only answering at most 2 questions completely correctly across all trials. Furthermore, models often hallucinate with lies in 58.3\% of responses on average. Cost analysis reveals no correlation between expense (API pricing or parameter count) and performance. We intend this benchmark to be a target for future research in trustworthy and correct AI coding assistants.

Kensen Shi, Deniz Altınbüken, Saswat Anand et al.

We propose using natural language outlines as a novel modality and interaction surface for providing AI assistance to developers throughout the software development process. An NL outline for a code function comprises multiple statements written in concise prose, which partition the code and summarize its main ideas in the style of literate programming. Crucially, we find that modern LLMs can generate accurate and high-quality NL outlines in practice. Moreover, NL outlines enable a bidirectional sync between code and NL, where a developer can change either code or NL and have the LLM automatically update the other. We discuss many use cases for NL outlines: they can accelerate understanding and navigation of code and diffs, simplify code maintenance, augment code search, steer code generation, and more. We then propose and compare multiple LLM prompting techniques for generating outlines and ask professional developers to judge outline quality. Finally, we present two case studies applying NL outlines toward code review and malware detection.

Shubham Ugare, Satish Chandra

Can LLM agents explore codebases and reason about code semantics without executing the code? We study this capability, which we call agentic code reasoning, and introduce semi-formal reasoning: a structured prompting methodology that requires agents to construct explicit premises, trace execution paths, and derive formal conclusions. Unlike unstructured chain-of-thought, semi-formal reasoning acts as a certificate: the agent cannot skip cases or make unsupported claims. We evaluate across three tasks (patch equivalence verification, fault localization, and code question answering) and show that semi-formal reasoning consistently improves accuracy on all of them. For patch equivalence, accuracy improves from 78% to 88% on curated examples and reaches 93% on real-world agent-generated patches, approaching the reliability needed for execution-free RL reward signals. For code question answering on RubberDuckBench Mohammad et al. (2026), semi-formal reasoning achieves 87% accuracy. For fault localization on Defects4J Just et al. (2014), semi-formal reasoning improves Top-5 accuracy by 5 percentage points over standard reasoning. These results demonstrate that structured agentic reasoning enables meaningful semantic code analysis without execution, opening practical applications in RL training pipelines, code review, and static program analysis.

Seohyun Kim, Jinman Zhao, Yuchi Tian et al.

We advance the state-of-the-art in the accuracy of code prediction (next token prediction) used in autocomplete systems. First, we report that using the recently proposed Transformer architecture even out-of-the-box outperforms previous neural and non-neural systems for code prediction. We then show that by making the Transformer architecture aware of the syntactic structure of code, we further increase the margin by which a Transformer-based system outperforms previous systems. With this, it outperforms the accuracy of an RNN-based system (similar to Hellendoorn et al. 2018) by 18.3%, the Deep3 system (Raychev et al 2016) by 14.1%, and an adaptation of Code2Seq (Alon et al., 2018) for code prediction by 14.4%. We present in the paper several ways of communicating the code structure to the Transformer, which is fundamentally built for processing sequence data. We provide a comprehensive experimental evaluation of our proposal, along with alternative design choices, on a standard Python dataset, as well as on a Facebook internal Python corpus. Our code and data preparation pipeline will be available in open source.

Jürgen Cito, Isil Dillig, Vijayaraghavan Murali et al.

Machine learning (ML) models play an increasingly prevalent role in many software engineering tasks. However, because most models are now powered by opaque deep neural networks, it can be difficult for developers to understand why the model came to a certain conclusion and how to act upon the model's prediction. Motivated by this problem, this paper explores counterfactual explanations for models of source code. Such counterfactual explanations constitute minimal changes to the source code under which the model "changes its mind". We integrate counterfactual explanation generation to models of source code in a real-world setting. We describe considerations that impact both the ability to find realistic and plausible counterfactual explanations, as well as the usefulness of such explanation to the user of the model. In a series of experiments we investigate the efficacy of our approach on three different models, each based on a BERT-like architecture operating over source code.