ChainSWE: Benchmarking Coding Agents on Multi-Bug Software Maintenance

Qirui Jin; Lingching Tung; Kenan Li; Qiyang Shi; Yushi She; Huanzhong Jia; Harrison Zhao; Kejing Xia; Zhenbang Du; Jiaxin Pei; Zhenyu Zhang; Zhen Qi; Yuyan Duan; Wenke Lee; Zijian Jin

arXiv · 2607.02606

ChainSWE: Benchmarking Coding Agents on Multi-Bug Software Maintenance

Qirui Jin·Lingching Tung·Kenan Li·Qiyang Shi·Yushi She·Huanzhong Jia·Harrison Zhao·Kejing Xia·Zhenbang Du·Jiaxin Pei·Zhenyu Zhang·Zhen Qi·Yuyan Duan·Wenke Lee·Zijian Jin

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Language model (LM) agents are increasingly deployed to maintain codebases over extended periods, fixing streams of related defects while carrying context from one fix to the next. Yet existing software engineering (SWE) benchmarks evaluate models one bug at a time: the repository is reset, the codebase is re-read, and a single self-contained issue is graded in isolation. This setting collapses a continuous maintenance workflow into a series of independent sessions, ignoring the cumulative dependencies that make real-world bug fixing challenging. To bridge this gap, we introduce ChainSWE, the first benchmark for evaluating agents on sequential, dependent bug fixes within a shared codebase. We collect chronological chains of 304 issues across 54 Python projects, mined from six SWE-bench-family datasets. Our evaluation across a range of agents and models reveals a consistent performance drop by up to 70% as the chain length increases.

Explore related subjects

cs.SE

Keep this discovery

BibTeX RIS

Qirui Jin, Lingching Tung, Kenan Li, Qiyang Shi, Yushi She, Huanzhong Jia, Harrison Zhao, Kejing Xia, Zhenbang Du, Jiaxin Pei, Zhenyu Zhang, Zhen Qi, Yuyan Duan, Wenke Lee, Zijian Jin. 2026-09-01. ChainSWE: Benchmarking Coding Agents on Multi-Bug Software Maintenance. https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.02606

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

Discover connections

cs.SE subject

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

The Impact of GenAI on the Future of Requirements Engineering

Recent advances in artificial intelligence (AI), particularly large language models (LLMs), are transforming how we design and build systems by increasing access to domain knowledge and by providing automation support to software engineering (SE). As implementation becomes less expensive through generalist SE agents, engineering effort shifts away from writing correct code and toward expressing, curating, verifying, and evaluating requirements. In this paper, we survey the state of the art in AI for requirements engineering (RE) research leading up to the transformation, before reviewing advances in LLMs. We survey two subsequent research areas: prompt programming, which treats LLM instructions as a program in SE vernacular, and generalist SE agents, which combine multiple LLM advances to yield semi-autonomous processes that complete SE tasks. Finally, we explore the future of requirements engineering along two axes: matters changing how we interact with requirements through the SE process, and matters changing how requirements are experienced by software developers and stakeholders more broadly, including end-users. This article aims to inform how RE researchers can navigate this transformation in the selection of future research priorities.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

From Prompting to Engineering: A Research Agenda for Prompt Engineering in Software Engineering

Prompt engineering is increasingly used across Software Engineering (SE) activities, including requirements analysis, coding, testing, documentation, repository analysis, and planning. Yet prompts and related instruction artifacts are often created and evolved through task-specific and informal practices, with limited support for their systematic evaluation, management, traceability, and governance. To examine how SE can contribute to the maturation of these practices, we organized a structured community discussion at the First International Workshop on Empirical Prompt Engineering for Software Engineering (PROMPT-SE), co-located with EASE 2026. Participants discussed current prompting practices, challenges to their adoption and evaluation, and future directions for integrating prompt engineering into software development. We synthesized these discussions into five areas: prompt artifacts and standardization; evaluation and benchmarking; lifecycle integration; human-AI collaboration and skills; and governance, privacy, and technical debt. Based on these areas, we outline a research agenda to move prompt engineering from predominantly ad hoc interactions toward more systematic, maintainable, evaluable, traceable, and governable SE practices.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

Antipatterns in AI-assisted Qualitative Data Analysis: A Catalog of Temptations and Pitfalls for Software Engineering Researchers

AI-assisted qualitative data analysis (QDA) offers unprecedented opportunities to streamline software engineering (SE) research, yet uncritical use risks compromising analytical rigor and flooding the field with accelerated production of low-quality research. While tactical best practices will naturally evolve over time, SE researchers currently lack strategic guidance to identify and mitigate methodological risks when attempting AI-assisted QDA. Based on our decades of qualitative SE research expertise and experience combined with an understanding of the emerging landscape of AI-assisted QDA, this paper presents a catalog of antipatterns in AI-assisted QDA - a set of assumptions and practices that initially appear advantageous but ultimately undermine analytical rigor and validity. The antipatterns are grouped into three categories reflecting escalating impact: Dangerous Drivers, Operational Missteps, and Analytical Failures. As more SE researchers attempt AI-assisted QDA, these antipatterns will help them identify and avoid common temptations and pitfalls, while reviewers can be equipped with the vocabulary and criteria to call out problematic and failed practice. Ultimately, this catalog of antipatterns can serve as a stepping stone in our responsible methodological evolution toward principled and meaningful human-AI collaboration in qualitative research.

cs.SE↗