Analysis of technique papers from ICSE 2026 finds that a newer model with a single prompt natively outperforms the heavily engineered tooling proposed just a year prior, and identifies that constructive techniques like code generation or repair are more amenable to substitution by a single-prompt.
Abstract
The software engineering research community has enthusiastically embraced the integration of Large Language Models (LLMs) into complex techniques to solve a wide variety of tasks. However, the extent to which this investment is strategic remains unclear, as the native capabilities of successive frontier model generations can rapidly render existing techniques obsolete. To assess this research investment, we analyze 35 LLM-based technique papers from ICSE 2026. We evaluate whether their complex tools can be outperformed by the simplest possible alternative: a single, automatically generated prompt executed on a newer generation model, without any iterative refinement. We find that for between 37% and 63% papers, a newer model with a single prompt natively outperforms the heavily engineered tooling proposed just a year prior. We identify that constructive techniques like code generation or repair are more amenable to substitution by a single-prompt. We also identify a surviving set of papers relying on strategies that provide additional insights to the model where newer LLMs will amplify the proposed technique. Our findings raise questions about the cost-benefit proposition of techniques designed as workarounds to temporary model deficits and the need to focus on enduring challenges that scale synergistically with future model generations. Our source codes and results are made publicly available at https://github.com/less-lab-uva/What-Survives-the-Next-Model.
Findings indicate that cross-model collaboration offers a practical and parameter-efficient alternative to scaling up monolithic models for code generation and maintains competitive accuracy when only 20% of test cases are available for diagnostic feedback.
Jiangping Huang, Wen-Guang Ye, Wei-Song Sun et al.· ACM Transactions on Software...· 0 citations
In an era where software development is deeply tied with Large Language Models, does Model Driven Engineering (MDE) still make sense? This raises the question of the extent to which MDE can be successfully combined with an LLM approach to address the downsides of each approach separately. In this paper, we try to answe...
Marco Calamo, Massimo Mecella, Monique Snoeck· 0 citations
The results show that harness-managed control flow can substantially improve the effectiveness of the smallest models and suggest that small models can be useful for repository repair when responsibilities are divided across explicit stages that can be independently assigned to the component best suited to each.
Francesco Dente, Dario Satriani, Donatello Santoro et al.· Proceedings of the 1st Inter...· 0 citations
An automated, multi-dimensional evaluation framework for C# code generation, applying it to four state-of-the-art LLMs: GPT, Gemini, Claude, and Grok is presented and a substantial gap between correctness and quality attributes is revealed.
Seyed Mohammad Mahdi Ghalandarian, Majid Bazargani, Masoumeh Taromirad· 0 citations
It is shown that prompt engineering "ages" in a model-family-specific way: Newer GPT models exhibit diminishing or even negative marginal gains from structured prompting, suggesting that instruction-following and reasoning scaffolds are increasingly internalized, whereas Qwen models continue to benefit substantially fr...
A. Rudyk, Julian Oertel, Regina Hebig· 0 citations
This work systematically map 14,767 papers introducing or updating evaluation resources from arXiv submissions between January 2022 and August 2026, using staged screening and automated full-text coding to examine changes in target systems and domains, evaluation materials and conditions, and scoring mechanisms.
Chao Wang· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.