Cited by 572Software Engineering ResearchSoftware Engineering Techniques and PracticesTopic Modeling

Self-collaboration code generation via ChatGPT

Open access
Dong, Yihong, Jiang, Xue, Jin, Zhi, Li, Ge·2024·ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology

Abstract

Although large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable code-generation ability, they still struggle with complex tasks. In real-world software development, humans usually tackle complex tasks through collaborative teamwork, a strategy that significantly controls development complexity and enhances software quality. Inspired by this, we present a self-collaboration framework for code generation employing LLMs, exemplified by ChatGPT. Specifically, through role instructions, (1) Multiple LLM agents act as distinct “experts,” each responsible for a specific subtask within a complex task; (2) Specify the way to collaborate and interact, so that different roles form a virtual team to facilitate each other’s work, ultimately the virtual team addresses code generation tasks collaboratively without the need for human intervention. To effectively organize and manage this virtual team, we incorporate software-development methodology into the framework. Thus, we assemble an elementary team consisting of three LLM roles (i.e., analyst, coder, and tester) responsible for software development’s analysis, coding, and testing stages. We conduct comprehensive experiments on various code-generation benchmarks. Experimental results indicate that self-collaboration code generation relatively improves 29.9–47.1% Pass@1 compared to the base LLM agent. Moreover, we showcase that self-collaboration could potentially enable LLMs to efficiently handle complex repository-level tasks that are not readily solved by the single LLM agent.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3672459

Cites

53 of 53 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Multi-agent code-centric systems can be reviewed through agent roles, collaboration modes, and workflow topologies.

    “We review multi-agent code-centric systems through agent roles such as manager, planner, coder, reviewer, and tester; collaboration modes such as programming, repair, debate, red-teaming, and adversarial interaction; and workflow topologies ranging from centralized coordination to distributed or streaming collaboration [54, 55, 56].”

    From Code as Agent Harness (2026) · cites this paper as [56]

    The Introduction (page not provided) describes analyst, coder, and tester agents working through a sequential code-generation workflow with feedback; Section 3 also describes code repair. This supports examples of roles, collaboration, and workflow, but the paper does not present the claimed range of modes—such as debate, red-teaming, and adversarial interaction—or topologies from centralized to distributed or streaming collaboration. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Self-Collaboration is among the first systems to explicitly name and invoke the blackboard architecture, establishing a shared memory from which all three roles read and write.

    “Self-Collaboration [56] is among the first systems to explicitly name and invoke the blackboard architecture, establishing a shared memory from which all three roles read and write.”

    From Code as Agent Harness (2026) · cites this paper as [56]

    Section 2.2 (page unavailable) explicitly describes a shared blackboard and shows information being retrieved from and added to it; the Introduction identifies the three roles as analyst, coder, and tester. The paper does not establish that Self-Collaboration was among the first systems to use this architecture. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Self-Collaboration and QualityFlow demonstrate that LLM-simulated execution can achieve 98%+ precision and recall in predicting actual outcomes without running code.

    “Self-Collaboration [56] and QualityFlow [253] demonstrate that LLM-simulated execution can achieve 98%+ precision and recall in predicting actual outcomes without running code.”

    From Code as Agent Harness (2026) · cites this paper as [56]

    Section 3 (page unavailable) says the tester uses the model to simulate testing rather than executing code with a compiler and test cases. Section 4.3 (page unavailable) says the tester can resolve some mistakes without compiler results. The paper does not report 98%+ precision and recall for predicting actual outcomes, so it does not support that quantitative claim. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

23 of the 76 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. [12][12] Caroline Claus and Craig Boutilier. 1998. The Dynamics of Reinforcement Learning in Cooperative Multiagent Systems. In AAAI/IAAI . AAAI Press / The MIT Press, 746-752. -
  2. [13][13] Tom DeMarco and Tim Lister. 2013. Peopleware: productive projects and teams . Addison-Wesley. -
  3. [29][29] Raymond Li, Loubna Ben Allal, Yangtian Zi, Niklas Muennighoff, Denis Kocetkov, Chenghao Mou, Marc Marone, Christopher Akiki, Jia Li, Jenny Chim, Qian Liu, Evgenii Zheltonozhskii, Terry Yue Zhuo, Thomas Wang, Olivier Dehaene, Mishig Davaadorj, Joel Lamy-Poirier, João Monteiro, Oleh Shliazhko, Nicolas Gontier, Nicholas Meade, Armel Zebaze, Ming-Ho Yee, Logesh Kumar Umapathi, Jian Zhu, Benjamin Lipkin, Muhtasham Oblokulov, Zhiruo Wang, Rudra Murthy V, Jason Stillerman, Siva Sankalp Patel, Dmitry Abulkhanov, Marco Zocca, Manan Dey, Zhihan Zhang, Nour Moustafa-Fahmy, Urvashi Bhattacharyya, Wenhao Yu, Swayam Singh, Sasha Luccioni, Paulo Villegas, Maxim Kunakov, Fedor Zhdanov, Manuel Romero, Tony Lee, Nadav Timor, Jennifer Ding, Claire Schlesinger, Hailey Schoelkopf, Jan Ebert, Tri Dao, Mayank Mishra, Alex Gu, Jennifer Robinson, Carolyn Jane Anderson, Brendan DolanGavitt, Danish Contractor, Siva Reddy, Daniel Fried, Dzmitry Bahdanau, Yacine Jernite, Carlos Muñoz Ferrandis, Sean Hughes, Thomas Wolf, Arjun Guha, Leandro von Werra, and Harm de Vries. 2023. StarCoder: may the source be with you! CoRR abs/2305.06161 (2023). - · arXiv
  4. [42][42] Long Ouyang, Jeff Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll L. Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, John Schulman, Jacob Hilton, Fraser Kelton, Luke Miller, Maddie Simens, Amanda Askell, Peter Welinder, Paul F. Christiano, Jan Leike, and Ryan Lowe. 2022. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. CoRR abs/2203.02155 (2022). - · arXiv
  5. [45][45] Baptiste Rozière, Jonas Gehring, Fabian Gloeckle, Sten Sootla, Itai Gat, Xiaoqing Ellen Tan, Yossi Adi, Jingyu Liu, Tal Remez, Jérémy Rapin, Artyom Kozhevnikov, Ivan Evtimov, Joanna Bitton, Manish Bhatt, Cristian Canton-Ferrer, Aaron Grattafiori, Wenhan Xiong, Alexandre Défossez, Jade Copet, Faisal Azhar, Hugo Touvron, Louis Martin, Nicolas Usunier, Thomas Scialom, and Gabriel Synnaeve. 2023. Code Llama: Open Foundation Models for Code. CoRR abs/2308.12950 (2023). - · arXiv
  6. [51][51] Taylor Shin, Yasaman Razeghi, Robert L. Logan IV, Eric Wallace, and Sameer Singh. 2020. AutoPrompt: Eliciting Knowledge from Language Models with Automatically Generated Prompts. In EMNLP (1) . Association for Computational Linguistics, 4222-4235. -
  7. [57][57] Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Brian Ichter, Fei Xia, Ed H. Chi, Quoc V. Le, and Denny Zhou. 2022. Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models. In NeurIPS . -

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dong, Y., Jiang, X., Jin, Z., & Li, G.
Affiliations
Peking University (CN)
Venue
ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology
Published
2024-09-27
Volume
33
Issue
7
Pages
1-38
ISSN
  • 1049-331X (ISSN-L)
  • 1557-7392
OpenAlex
W4399557965
Cited by
256
References
76
Citations by year
2026: 84 · 2025: 116 · 2024: 43 · 2023: 13
FWCI
91.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • National Natural Science Foundation of China (62192733, 61832009, 62192731, 62192730, and 62072007)
  • Key Program of Hubei (JD2023008)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Research
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Techniques and Practices
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
Keywords
code generation, large language models, ChatGPT, agent cooperation, virtual teams, software development process, software testing

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review