Viktor Kjellberg

Srijita Basu, Viktor Kjellberg, Simin Sun et al.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly applied to software engineering (SE), yet their potential for autonomous, role-oriented collaboration remains largely underexplored. Understanding how multiple LLM-based agents coordinate, maintain role alignment, and converge on solutions is critical for SE, as naively allowing agents to interact does not reliably lead to correct or stable outcomes. Recent empirical studies show that unstructured or poorly understood interaction dynamics can result in error propagation, premature consensus on incorrect solutions, or prolonged disagreement that prevents convergence, even when correct partial solutions are present early in the interaction. As an initial step towards addressing this underexplored area, we undertake a systematic analysis of conversations between two agents, a Designer and a Programmer across 12 model combinations from 7 open-source LLMs (Gemma 2, Gemma 3, LLaMA 3.2, LLaMA 3.3, DeepSeek-R1, MiniCPM, and Qwen3). Our systematic approach reveals three key dimensions of multi-agent interaction: efficiency (the speed and stability of convergence), consistency (the degree of role alignment visualized by BLEU and ROUGE), and effectiveness (the extent of compilation success and error resolution). Results show that the DeepSeek-R1:DeepSeek-R1 pair was unique in converging to the correct solution from the very first iteration and sustaining it consistently to the final iteration, while LLaMA 3.2:LLaMA 3.2 and Qwen3:Qwen3 demonstrated strong Designer:Programmer role alignment despite of diverging from the correct solution. The other pairs deviated from the task, never to converge to a result. These findings advance understanding of agentic programming and highlight the need for further research on understanding and calibrating convergence and stop conditions essential for future autonomous SE.

Viktor Kjellberg, Farnaz Fotrousi, Miroslaw Staron

Large Language Models (LLMs) can generate functional source code from natural-language prompts, but often fail to consistently follow higher-level architectural structures or design patterns. Since LLMs are increasingly used in software engineering, their ability to apply established design principles to generated code is crucial to the long-term success of software products. Therefore, the goal of this paper is to identify strategies for guiding LLMs to incorporate design patterns into the generated source code. We designed a computational experiment to evaluate the ability of 13 LLMs to generate code that follows the Singleton design pattern, using four prompting strategies: instructions, binary automated feedback, extensive automated feedback, and extensive feedback with few-shot prompts, in 164 Java coding challenges from HumanEval-X. Our results shows that the optimal strategy to guide LLMs to include design patterns depends heavily on the type of model. Still, overall, iterative binary feedback provides the best alignment with Singleton while preserving or improving the code's functionality. With guiding with instructions, Llama 3.3 generated Singleton classes in 100% of cases and improved code functionality, increasing the number of tests passed by 34.1 percentage points. It achieved a similar result with guidance through instructions and binary feedback. Qwen 3 (8B) increased the alignment with Singleton to 99.2% and the functionality to 58.6% using binary feedback. Our result suggests that even simple strategies can be used to guide LLMs to use design patterns.

Daniel Enström, Viktor Kjellberg, Moa Johansson

Transformer language models are neural networks used for a wide variety of tasks concerning natural language, including some that also require logical reasoning. However, a transformer model may easily learn spurious patterns in the data, short-circuiting actual reasoning. In this paper we investigate to what extent transformers can be trained to a) approximate reasoning in propositional logic while b) avoiding known reasoning shortcuts via spurious correlations in the training data. To do so, we use a dataset with known spurious correlation between truth and e.g. the number of rules in the problem. We augment the data with proofs, and train two models: a generative transformer, WP-BART, trained on problems and their whole proofs, and a neuro-symbolic model, SIP-BART, trained on individual proof steps and combining the generative transformer model BART with a symbolic proof checker. We find that SIP-BART succeeds in avoiding reasoning shortcuts, while WP-BART does not. For SIP-BART, we then identify a few remaining reasoning errors, not previously described in the literature, arising from using a pre-trained language model. These are qualitatively analysed to create a taxonomy of four different types of additional pitfalls.