CAR-bench evaluates whether tool-using agents stay reliable under real-world uncertainty, executing every tool inside the evaluator so that each tool-result exchange is a separate agent round-trip. A conventional next-action agent can batch parallel tool calls, but a chain of dependent calls costs it one model call per round of results. We present a coroutine-bridge harness in which the model's only action is to emit a Python program that blocks and resumes in place across evaluator tool exchanges. This decouples model invocation from tool round-trips: on the public test split the agent uses a median of two model calls against seven agent turns per task, resolving a full multi-turn task in a median of 1.8 s of model latency on Cerebras gpt-oss-120b. Because the action surface is executable code, deterministic CAR-bench policies are encoded directly as logic in the tool layer rather than as prompt rules, enforcing compliance at zero reasoning cost. On the official hidden evaluation the harness won Track 2 with 60.0% Pass^3, 4.5x the organizer baseline, at the lowest estimated cost and the fastest median task latency (3.14 s) of any entry scoring above that baseline; the same unchanged harness reproduced an identical 60.0% Pass^3 on GPT-5.5 in the Open track, matching frontier-model agents. A single static prompt, appended with per-task state at the tail, stays byte-identical across calls and across tasks: the frozen submission prompt served 78% of input tokens from cache (86.6% across its warm tail), against 73% over a three-week development corpus in which prompt edits repeatedly reset the cache. This compounds the few-call design into a small fraction of nominal input compute.
This paper investigates developing real-world perception for active agents, proposes Gibson Environment for this purpose, and showcases a set of perceptual tasks learned therein.
F. Xia, Amir Zamir, Zhi-Yang He et al.· 2018 IEEE/CVF Conference on...· 1,069 citations· ⚡112
This publication proposes a definition and a classification of agile software development approaches and analyses ten software development methods that can be characterized as being "agile" against the defined criterion.
P. Abrahamsson, O. Salo, Jussi Ronkainen et al.· arXiv.org· 727 citations· ⚡54
Consequences of happiness and unhappiness that are beneficial and detrimental for developers' mental well-being, the software development process, and the produced artifacts are found.
D. Graziotin, Fabian Fagerholm, Xiaofeng Wang et al.· Journal of Systems and Softw...· 236 citations· ⚡13
The Mobile-D approach is briefly outlined here and the experiences gained from four case studies are discussed, which helped develop an agile development approach for mobile application development.
P. Abrahamsson, Antti Hanhineva, H. Hulkko et al.· Conference on Object-Oriente...· 225 citations· ⚡18
GAOKAO-Bench is introduced, an intuitive benchmark that employs questions from the Chinese GAOKAO examination as test samples, including both subjective and objective questions that contribute a robust evaluation benchmark for future large language models and offers valuable insights into the advantages and limitations...
Xiaotian Zhang, Chun-yan Li, Yi Zong et al.· arXiv.org· 216 citations· ⚡17
A study with 42 participants investigates the relationship between the affective states, creativity, and analytical problem-solving skills of software developers and offers support for the claim that happy developers are indeed better problem solvers in terms of their analytical abilities.
D. Graziotin, Xiaofeng Wang, P. Abrahamsson· PeerJ· 216 citations· ⚡13