Ashita Saxena

Advait Pavuluri, Bridget McGinn, Ashita Saxena et al.

Java remains central to enterprise software, and many applications outlive their original architecture. Migrating them across frameworks is a behavior-preserving refactoring spanning build configuration, dependency injection, persistence, request handling, and deployment. Existing software-engineering benchmarks cover bug fixing, feature implementation, and language or version modernization, but leave cross-framework refactoring largely unmeasured. We introduce ScarfBench, a benchmark for behavior-preserving cross-framework refactoring of enterprise Java applications. It is built from expert-written implementation triples across Spring, Jakarta EE, and Quarkus: 34 applications (29 focused single-layer, 5 whole) yielding 102 variants (~151K lines across 1946 source and test files) and 204 directed refactoring tasks. Each task gives an agent a working source application and a target framework; the agent must synthesize a target implementation preserving the source behavior. Correctness is evaluated by an application-specific executable oracle: the candidate must compile, deploy in a containerized target runtime, and pass behavioral tests over the application's observable interface. We evaluate five state-of-the-art coding agents on ScarfBench. The strongest achieves only 15.3% aggregate test pass on focused-layer migrations and 12.2% on whole applications, and only one of the 204 tasks yields a fully behaviorally equivalent target. Difficulty is asymmetric across framework directions and architectural layers: Spring<->Quarkus is the most tractable pair, and Jakarta-targeted migrations are hardest. From LLM-as-a-judge and expert adjudication of failed-task traces, we derive a taxonomy of recurring failure categories spanning build, deploy, and test stages. We release the benchmark, harness, and agent traces at https://scarfbench.info.

Kishan Maharaj, Nandakishore Menon, Ashita Saxena et al.

Large language models (LLMs) increasingly assist software engineering tasks that require reasoning over long code contexts, yet their robustness under varying input conditions remains unclear. We conduct a systematic study of long-context code question answering using controlled ablations that test sensitivity to answer format, distractors, and context scale. Extending LongCodeBench Python dataset with new COBOL and Java question-answer sets, we evaluate state-of-the-art models under three settings: (i) shuffled multiple-choice options, (ii) open-ended questions and (iii) needle-in-a-haystack contexts containing relevant and adversarially irrelevant information. Results show substantial performance drops in both shuffled multiple-choice options and open-ended questions, and brittle behavior in the presence of irrelevant cues. Our findings highlight limitations of current long-context evaluations and provide a broader benchmark for assessing code reasoning in both legacy and modern systems.