Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
PreprintCited by 0

The DOI matches its DataCite record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

AsynCodeBench: Benchmarking Collaboration of Asynchronous Multi-Agent Systems in Software Engineering

Zhang, Kaituo, Xiong, Zhen, Jiang, Zhimeng, Zhong, Mingyu, Yuan, Zhouyuan, Li, Zhecheng, Lin, Bowen, Chang, Chia-Yuan, Hu, Mingzhi, Wang, Huazheng, Lin, Ying·2026·arXiv

Abstract

Multi-agent coding has emerged as an increasingly active direction in software engineering, where complex development tasks are decomposed across multiple specialized agents working on different parts of the problem. Despite the shift from individual problem solving to distributed collaboration, multi-agent systems still lack a direct measure of collaboration and are largely evaluated through task-level outcomes inherited from single-agent coding, conflating individual coding capability with cross-agent coordination. We introduce AsynCodeBench, a dependency-centric benchmark for asynchronous multi-agent software engineering that represents each task with an explicit dependency graph and executable Dependency Checkers. Through this dependency-tracking process, we propose two complementary measures: Asynchronous Dependency Pass Rate (ADPR), which measures how many cross-agent dependencies are ultimately satisfied, and Dependency Resolution Step (DRS), which measures when each dependency first becomes satisfied during execution. AsynCodeBench comprises 19 tasks from real-world repositories, exposing 52 directed dependencies as explicit units for evaluating cross-agent collaboration. Experiments across model families, scales, and generations reveal a clear gap between coding and collaboration capability: improvements in coding performance do not necessarily translate into stronger collaboration, and task-level metrics can diverge substantially from dependency-level collaboration measures. Dependency-trajectory analysis further reveals that successful coordination often emerges not gradually, but through concentrated bursts in which many dependencies become resolved over a short portion of the execution trajectory, a pattern we term a hopping window.

Overview

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2609.32662

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 6 references

Metadata

Authors
Zhang, K., Xiong, Z., Jiang, Z., Zhong, M., Yuan, Z., Li, Z., Lin, B., Chang, C.-Y., Hu, M., Wang, H., & Lin, Y.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2026
References
6
Type
Preprint

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: AsynCodeBench: Benchmarking Collaboration of Asynchronous Multi-Agent Systems in Software Engineering. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.48550/arxiv.2609.32662
The paper
Zhang, K., Xiong, Z., Jiang, Z., Zhong, M., Yuan, Z., Li, Z., Lin, B., Chang, C.-Y., Hu, M., Wang, H., & Lin, Y. (2026). AsynCodeBench: Benchmarking Collaboration of Asynchronous Multi-Agent Systems in Software Engineering. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2609.32662

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.