The integration of Large Language Models (LLMs) into software engineering has driven a transition from traditional rule-based systems to autonomous agentic systems capable of solving complex problems. However, systematic progress is hindered by a lack of comprehensive understanding of how benchmarks and solutions interconnect. This survey addresses this gap by providing the first holistic analysis of LLM-powered software engineering, offering insights into evaluation methodologies and solution paradigms. We review over 150 recent papers and propose a taxonomy along two key dimensions: (1) Solutions, categorized into prompt-based, fine-tuning-based, and agent-based paradigms, and (2) Benchmarks, including tasks such as code generation, translation, and repair. Our analysis highlights the evolution from simple prompt engineering to sophisticated agentic systems incorporating capabilities like planning, reasoning, memory mechanisms, and tool augmentation. This survey serves as a foundational guide for advancing LLM-driven software engineering.
Eigenvector Insight — Zone III / PASF-PADE AnalysisNot part of the original paper
Eigenvector Research — Marco van Hurne
How this paper contributes to solving the Zone III problem (PASF-PADE)
This paper directly addresses one of the core structural challenges in Zone III deployments. The research on LLM-powered software engineering, Agentic systems, Code generation provides evidence-based foundations that enterprise architects cannot ignore when designing long-horizon autonomous workflows. The findings challenge the assumption that a base language model — however capable — can handle the complexity of durable, governed, multi-step execution without explicit architectural intervention. For Zone III practitioners, this paper belongs in the required reading list.
Why AI is not sufficient for Zone III without this
Zone III refers to high-complexity, high-risk, long-running agentic workflows — the class of enterprise AI deployments where a single failure can cascade across hundreds of steps. Standard AI models, trained to predict the next token, are not inherently designed for durable, governed, multi-step execution. This paper addresses one or more of the structural gaps that make Zone III deployments unsafe without explicit architectural intervention.