SWE-bench Verified
3 storiesSWE-bench Verified is a benchmark for evaluating AI coding agents on real software issues. Recent coverage has focused on how such benchmarks are run and read: a paper compared 176 matched settings across four models on SWE-bench Verified and Terminal-Bench 2.1, isolating planning, action space and context management; the open-source Parsimony benchmark counts net code added in public patches from DeepSWE, SWE-bench Verified and Live; and a write-up argued lab-run decontamination reports cannot fix benchmark contamination.
Related topics
The open-source Parsimony benchmark measures net code units added by AI models, not just solve rate or token cost, to capture code bloat in long-term projects. It counts syntax elements in public patches from DeepSWE, SWE-bench Verified and Live, subtracting deletions; since GPT-6 and Claude 5.5 lack public patches, the author ran a few tasks himself, shown unranked.
A write-up argues lab-run decontamination reports cannot fix benchmark contamination: labs check themselves, corpora contain copyrighted works that can't be disclosed, and paraphrase, forum, GitHub, or synthetic-derived data evade matching. It proposes evaluators own the test, submissions never see labels, evaluation runs offline and is rebuilt from a named commit, and where possible test data is generated after submissions freeze, with only reproduced results counting.
A paper evaluates 176 matched settings across four models on SWE-Bench Verified and Terminal-Bench 2.1, isolating three harness components: planning, action space, and context management. It finds context management matters most when budgets tighten, staging rule-based elision before LLM summarization is most efficient, planning is an accuracy scaffold for weaker models but a cost saver for stronger ones, and bash-capable models can use a bash-only interface at lower cost.
That is everything