Loading article...
Loading article...
Stream/Area:
-
Subject:
-
Paper ID:
IJSREM65717
Volume:
10 |
6 |
Jun 2026
Pages:
1-6
Publication Frequency:
Monthly (12 issues per year)
License:International Journal of Scientific Research in Engineering and Management follows the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0) License, allowing free use and distribution with proper attribution.
Department of Computer Science and Engineering
Hyderabad Institute of Technology and Management
Department of Computer Science and Engineering
Hyderabad Institute of Technology and Management
Department of Computer Science and Engineering
Hyderabad Institute of Technology and Management
Large Language Models (LLMs) have significantly transformed software engineering by enabling intelligent code generation, automated testing, documentation, and defect local-ization. While single-agent systems have demonstrated promising performance in software maintenance, they often struggle with complex debugging tasks requiring iterative reasoning, collabora-tive verification, and long execution workflows. Recent advances in multi-agent orchestration frameworks enable multiple spe-cialized agents to cooperate during software debugging, thereby improving reasoning quality, modularity, and maintainability. This paper presents a comparative analysis of five representa-tive multi-agent frameworks—LangGraph, Microsoft AutoGen, CrewAI, OpenAI Agents SDK, and SmolAgents—for automated software bug resolution. A generalized seven-agent debugging architecture is proposed to provide a framework-independent evaluation methodology. The study examines architectural de-sign, workflow orchestration, execution efficiency, scalability, collaboration mechanisms, token utilization, maintainability, and deployment complexity. Mathematical formulations describing collaborative debugging workflows are introduced together with evaluation metrics suitable for benchmarking autonomous soft-ware maintenance systems. Experimental methodology based on publicly available software engineering benchmarks is described, and comparative performance trends are discussed. The pro-posed framework provides researchers and practitioners with a reproducible methodology for evaluating collaborative AI systems designed for intelligent software maintenance while identifying architectural trade-offs among modern multi-agent frameworks.
KEYWORDS
This paper presented a comparative evaluation of five con-temporary multi-agent orchestration frameworks for automated software bug resolution. A Unified Multi-Agent Debugging Orchestration (UMADO) architecture was introduced to pro-vide framework-independent benchmarking while ensuring consistent task allocation across different execution environ-ments. The comparative analysis indicates that graph-oriented or-chestration frameworks provide superior workflow control and debugging consistency for complex software systems. Con-versely, lightweight frameworks reduce computational cost and simplify deployment, making them appropriate for educational environments and rapid prototyping. The proposed methodology contributes a reproducible benchmarking framework that enables objective comparison of collaborative AI systems designed for intelligent software maintenance.
[1] A. Vaswani et al., “Attention is all you need,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2017. [2] T. B. Brown et al., “Language models are few-shot learners,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 33, pp. 1877–1901, 2020. [3] H. Touvron et al., “Llama 2: Open foundation and fine-tuned chat models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.09288, 2023. [4] OpenAI, “Gpt-4 technical report,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774, 2023. [5] J. Yang et al., “Swe-bench: Can language models resolve real-world github issues?” in International Conference on Learning Representa-tions, 2024. [6] R. Just, D. Jalali, and M. D. Ernst, “Defects4j: A database of existing faults for java programs,” in Proceedings of ISSTA, 2014. [7] M. Chen et al., “Evaluating large language models trained on code,” in arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.03374, 2021. [8] R. S. Pressman and B. R. Maxim, Software Engineering: A Practi-tioner’s Approach, 9th ed. McGraw-Hill, 2019. [9] I. Sommerville, Software Engineering, 10th ed. Pearson, 2016. [10] T. H. Cormen et al., Introduction to Algorithms, 4th ed. MIT Press, 2022.
Publication Date
6/30/2026
Peer Review Type
Double-Blind Peer Review
Review Rounds: 2
Documents
Article Views
1
Total views since publication
PDF Downloads
11
Total downloads since publication
Geographic Reach
5
Digital Preservation: This article is permanently archived on Zenodo and complies with all data preservation standards across major indexing platforms.
Plagiarism Screening
This manuscript has been checked for plagiarism using TurnitinPlagiarismChecker software.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest related to this research work.
Funding Information
No funding information available for this research.
Related research in the same subject area
Loading similar articles...