Search: “SWE-bench”

8 stories

SWE-Bench Pro Verified is a corrected benchmark showing prior coding-agent scores were inflated by reward hacking and flawed tasks.

Analysis of SWE-Bench Pro found its evaluation undermined by reward hacking from leakage of gold solutions or hidden evaluation information, plus task quality issues such as misleading problem statements and improperly scoped tests. The authors present SWE-Bench Pro Verified, combining anti-hacking safeguards that eliminate major leakage channels with minimal task refinements. Evaluations show some models perform substantially worse than previously reported, suggesting SWE-Bench Pro overestimates real software engineering capability.

Hugging Face daily papersSep 7, 20:00 UTC · 9d agoAI research1

Coding Agents Have Converged: Why the SWE-bench Leaderboard Can No Longer Order Its Top Entries, and What to Measure Instead

Audit of 254 SWE-bench submissions finds top coding-agent entries statistically inseparable, so small leaderboard gaps no longer establish rank.

The paper audits 254 SWE-bench submissions across four splits without running models. On Verified, the top two entries each resolve 396 of 500 instances, and exact paired McNemar tests separate none of the 29 adjacent top-thirty pairs at alpha=0.05. Within-model scaffold score ranges reach 29.8 percentage points, versus an 8.8-point spread among the top thirty. The authors release a five-step audit protocol and recommend reporting comparison-set-specific resolution and model-scaffold provenance.

arXiv cs.AI / cs.LG / cs.CLSep 15, 16:29 UTC · 1d agoAI research

ModularRSI: Modular and Generalizable Recursive Harness Self-Improvement

Researchers propose ModularRSI, a modular benchmark-disjoint recursive self-improvement framework that evolves agent harnesses across five modules, improving TB2.0 and SWE-Bench Verified results.

ModularRSI targets generalizable recursive self-improvement (RSI) for agent harnesses by contrasting successful and failed trajectories for the same task and aggregating evidence across tasks to find recurring behavioral deficiencies. It decomposes the evolvable harness into five modules—Agent Loop, Tool Use, Observation Management, Context Management, and Task Completion Detection—each evolved independently within a restricted scope, then integrated with conflict resolution. Using 2,000 executable evolution tasks disjoint from evaluation benchmarks, it shows consistent gains on TB2.0 and SWE-Bench Verified and transfers across different foundation models.

Hugging Face daily papersSep 13, 20:00 UTC · 3d agoAI research

ExecCritic: Learn to Test, Test to Improve for Coding Agents

ExecCritic separates test generation from patching for coding agents, lifting SWE-bench Verified resolution to 72.6%.

ExecCritic pairs a test-verify-revise scaffold with role-specific reinforcement learning: a Test agent writes repository-native tests and a Repair agent fixes code from execution feedback, both using Qwen-3.5-35B-A3B backbones. Post-trained Qwen agents compose to 72.6% on SWE-bench Verified, an 11.4-point gain over the 61.2% no-test baseline, without stronger-model or oracle feedback at evaluation time. The work shows test quality is the key variable: base-agent tests lowered resolution to 57.3% while GPT-5.6-sol tests raised it to 65.3%.

arXiv cs.AI / cs.LG / cs.CLSep 8, 17:53 UTC · 8d agoAI research1

What Does an LLM-Agent Leaderboard Rank Actually Compare?

A methodological study shows close LLM-agent leaderboard rank gaps on SWE-bench and similar benchmarks often do not support superiority claims.

The paper defines an estimand-aware pairwise procedure for comparing agents, checking common support and applying explicit uncertainty rules and practical margins. Across SWE-bench, AgentRewardBench, and tau2-bench, close rank differences are frequently unresolved, and proxy labels or utility rules can change which system is selected. The authors argue a leaderboard score summarizes a released evaluation but does not by itself justify pairwise superiority conclusions.

arXiv cs.AI / cs.LG / cs.CLSep 7, 17:31 UTC · 9d agoAI research

Can LLMs Engineer Their Own Agent Harness? ByteDance Seed’s HarnessDev Says Only 34 of 64 Changes Generalize

ByteDance Seed's HarnessDev benchmark finds LLM-built agent harnesses trail human engineering on code and search, with only 34 of 64 revisions generalizing.

Researchers from ByteDance Seed, SUTD, Georgia Tech, M-A-P, and TokenWave.AI introduce HarnessDev, a benchmark that evaluates the runnable agent harness an LLM writes rather than its answers, using Creation and Evolution stages across SWE-bench Pro, Terminal-Bench 2.1, MLE-bench, EQ-Bench3, and BrowseComp (2,207 instances). Six creator models including Opus 4.8, GPT-5.5, Gemini 3.1 Pro, DeepSeek V4 Pro, Qwen 3.7 Max, and Seed 2.0 Pro were tested; Opus 4.8 posted the best average of 67.8 versus an 86.2 human-engineered reference. Self-built harnesses beat references on writing and ML experimentation but lag badly on code and search, and quality proved executor-specific: Opus 4.8 fell from 69.3 to 33.0 on SWE-bench Pro when the executor was switched to Gemini. Evolution gains were small and noisy: of 64 adjacent changes, feedback and held-out scores agreed only 34 times (53.1%), and much generated state and memory code never executed.

MarkTechPostSep 11, 22:01 UTC · 5d agoAI research 2 sources

Beyond Outcomes: Dual-View Relational Learning for Efficient Agent Benchmarking

DualViewEval compresses agent benchmarks by jointly modeling outcome and process signals, achieving 24x-40x compression with only 20 tasks on APEX-Agents and BFCL.

DualViewEval is an agent benchmark compression method that jointly exploits outcome and process relations from trajectories to learn exact-size minisets predicting full-benchmark scores. The authors analyze large-scale trajectories and identify six process signals systematically associated with final agent performance. Across five agent benchmarks and five baselines, it achieves the best results on all datasets: with only 20 tasks it reaches 24x-40x compression on APEX-Agents and BFCL, reduces MAE by 14.5%-28.2% over the strongest competitors, and improves Kendall's tau by up to 7.2% relative to EssenceBench on SWE-bench Verified.

arXiv cs.AI / cs.LG / cs.CLSep 16, 16:49 UTC · 18h agoAI research1

Bilevel Coordinated Reflection: A Game-Theoretic Approach to Multi-Agent LLM Systems

Paper models multi-agent LLM orchestration as a bilevel game, proving transcript-only gating limits and introducing grounded-memory SRMA.

A new paper frames orchestrator-worker coordination in multi-agent LLM systems as a bilevel coordination game and analyzes free-form reflection as stochastic movement over semantic memory states, deriving finite-time bounds and an information-theoretic impossibility result: no gate observing only the generated transcript can uniformly improve over text-indistinguishable environments, while an environment-grounded gate can. The authors propose Stochastic Reflective Memory Ascent (SRMA), which accepts candidate memory only when grounded evaluation risk strictly decreases, with geometric or polynomial convergence guarantees. On 500 SWE-bench instances, a Kimi-based instantiation of the full system resolves 72.2% versus a 70.8% public mini-SWE-agent reference.

Hugging Face daily papersSep 1, 20:00 UTC · 15d agoAI research1