Software Engineering Benchmarks

Follow this topic Ask about this topic

Momentum

12 papers in the last four weeks, up 71% on the four weeks before. 0.1% of all new papers.

Jul 13Week of Sep 28

Latest papers 87

Jul 23, 2026cs.CL

Tencent WorkBuddy Bench: A Multi-Domain Coding-Agent Benchmark with Contamination-Resistant Task Construction

We introduce Tencent WorkBuddy Bench, a multi-domain evaluation suite for coding agents; this report documents its construction methodology, scoring protocol, and a cross-model leaderboard. At its core is a unified evaluation framework for constructing and running distribution-informed coding-agent tasks across four work domains - Code, Web, Office, and Security. Rather than adapting public issue text, every task is reverse-engineered from a real commit, pull request, or business scenario and rewritten as a short, colloquial, role-played request, so that a task's prompt is not recoverable by web-searching the underlying issue, pull request, or commit thread. Because the dataset is released openly - task directories, environment images, evaluation harness, tests, and reference solutions - contamination resistance rests on this construction together with dataset versioning rather than on secrecy. The four subsets - repository-level engineering, front-end development, office and business workflows, and red-/blue-team security - probe complementary facets of real work, each with its own verification style. All are packaged in a uniform task-directory format and run, under a uniform and reproducible protocol, on two agent harnesses (CodeBuddy Code and Claude Code); the full open release makes the benchmark reproducible end to end and directly auditable, since any third party can re-run each task and inspect its content. Because each subset uses a different scoring instrument, scores are not comparable across subsets and the suite reports no suite-wide average. We report a cross-model leaderboard across several model families.

Tencent WorkBuddy Bench Team, Siqi Cai, Shaopeng Chen +35

Youtu Lab · Keen Security Lab · Workbuddy · Yunding Security Lab

Benchmark Contamination Software Engineering Benchmarks AI Agent Security Benchmarks AI Agent Benchmarks

Jul 19, 2026cs.SE

SynH-Rank: Quality-Aware Code Search via Diverse Data Synthesis and Hierarchical Ranking Training

Code search enhances developer productivity by enabling efficient code reuse. Current code search systems often use a retrieve-then-rerank pipeline, where rerankers focus on modeling semantic relevance between queries and code. However, these rerankers overlook critical non-functional qualities like execution speed, memory usage, and maintainability, which are essential for practical software development. Studies reveal developers expect results to maintain high coding standards and satisfy specific needs, such as resource optimization, highlighting the importance of quality-aware code search. Achieving quality-aware code search faces two major challenges: the scarcity of quality-annotated datasets for effective training and the limitations of standard contrastive learning objectives, which fail to capture the ordinal relationships among high-quality, low-quality, and irrelevant code. Although contrastive learning excels in distinguishing relevant from irrelevant code, its binary objective does not support nuanced quality distinctions.To address these challenges, we propose SynH-Rank, a quality-aware code reranking framework that combines LLM-driven diverse data synthesis with hierarchical ranking training. SynH-Rank employs a three-level labeling scheme to explicitly model the hierarchy: high-quality relevant > low-quality relevant > irrelevant. Additionally, we introduce a new benchmark with 4,209 pairs and two novel metrics: Quality Preference Accuracy (QPA) for assessing prioritization of high-quality code and Multi-Condition Accuracy (MCA) for evaluating performance under complex constraints.Experimental results show SynH-Rank improves QPA by 20.15% over backbone models and outperforms standard relevance-only contrastive training by 15.80%, while simultaneously enhancing traditional relevance metrics and multi-condition generalizability.

Keyu Liang, Haoye Wang, Yanfu Yan +2

College of Computer Science and Technology and The State Key Laboratory of Blockchain and Data Security Zhejiang University Hangzhou, China · Hangzhou City University Hangzhou, China · Zhejiang University and Hangzhou High-Tech Zone (Binjiang) Institute of Blockchain and Data Security Hangzhou, China

Learning to Rank Software Engineering Benchmarks

Jul 17, 2026cs.SE

When to Use Which? Benchmarking Optimisers for Configurable Systems under Varying Budgets

Software configuration tuning is crucial for optimising system performance, and various optimisers have emerged over the last decade. Yet, the time required during the tuning process may vary across systems. In some systems (e.g., PostgreSQL), it may take a few minutes to measure a configuration, whereas in some others (e.g., MariaDB), it can take several hours. Moreover, even within the same system, users may have varying budgets and preferred settings. This naturally raises a question -- Given a budget level, which optimiser is the best choice for SE practitioners? This matters because optimisers usually have their own ``comfort zone'' and may perform very differently under distinct budgets. In this paper, we aim to answer this question. We systematically evaluate eight well-established optimisers across 22 configurable systems under varying budget levels. We find that, unsurprisingly, model-based optimisers (e.g., SMAC) are well-suited under tight budgets, and model-free optimisers (e.g., GAs) become superior with more generous budgets. However, interestingly, there is one optimiser, FLASH, that performs consistently well on most systems regardless of budgets. We lastly investigate the reasons behind this phenomenon and find that many systems possess good local optima (with large basins of attraction), allowing greedy optimisers (e.g., FLASH) to achieve strong performance. Source code, data, and supplementary materials of this work are available at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/Config-W2W-98B2.

Chao Jiang, Yulong Ye, Tao Chen +1

University of Birmingham, United Kingdom · IDEAS Lab, University of Birmingham, United Kingdom

Black-Box Optimization Software Engineering Benchmarks

Jul 16, 2026cs.AI

Alipay-PIBench: A Realistic Payment Integration Benchmark for Coding Agents

Payment integration is a demanding repository-level software task: agents must select a suitable product, implement coordinated client-server flows, verify payment outcomes, and preserve consistency between transaction and business states. We introduce Alipay-PIBench, a benchmark for evaluating coding agents on realistic Alipay payment integration. It contains nine product-specific projects and 18 task instances, each organized into Basic functional-completion and Advanced risk-aware hardening scenarios. Scenario-specific rubrics support deterministic static, unit, integration, and end-to-end checks, supplemented by LLM-assisted assessment for semantic requirements. We evaluate six coding-agent models and report rubric pass rate (RPR). Under the with-skill condition, mean RPR ranges from 68.58% to 91.37%. Access to the alipay-payment-integration skill improves mean RPR by 10.31 percentage points on average relative to the without-skill condition, with gains varying across models, products, and scenarios. Method-level results distinguish source-level completion, executable payment behavior, and payment-domain requirements. Alipay-PIBench provides a controlled setting for diagnosing model capability and evaluating structured guidance in payment integration.

Shiyu Ying, Xuejie Cao, Yingfan Ma +4

Ant Group

AI Coding Agents Software Engineering Benchmarks Code Generation Benchmarks

Jul 14, 2026cs.AI

How Many Tasks Are Enough for Agent Benchmark Decisions? A Replay Analysis of Public LLM Agent Benchmarks

Agent benchmarks often compare two agents after all tasks have run, but costly evaluations make partial runs tempting. A task fraction alone does not show whether a partial run supports the same pairwise conclusion as the completed benchmark. We study this question by replaying completed public task-level records from SWE-bench, AppWorld, and tau-bench. A partial budget counts as enough only when it supports the completed benchmark's decision, covers required task groups, and leaves no more than a target fraction of comparisons unresolved. The required task fraction varies sharply. At the strict 0 percentage point threshold on a 5 percentage point budget grid, AppWorld first meets all targets at 15 percent, tau-bench at 25 percent, and SWE-bench Verified at 90 percent; SWE-bench Lite does not meet all targets by 95 percent under the primary coverage rule. Partial-evaluation reports should state how much one agent must outperform another, how tasks are selected, what coverage rule is required, what decision rule is used, and how many comparisons may remain unresolved.

Wei-Jung Huang

Independent Researcher · United States

Pairwise Comparison Benchmark Design Software Engineering Benchmarks LLM Agent Evaluation

Jul 13, 2026cs.AI

Good Benchmarks

Good tasks are correct, solvable, verifiable, well-specified, and hard for interesting reasons. The best tasks describe a real problem an experienced practitioner would recognize, in language a practitioner would use, with tests that verify the outcome rather than the approach.

Ivan Bercovich

Benchmark Design Software Engineering Benchmarks Benchmark Validity

Jul 8, 2026cs.SE

DeepSWE: Measuring Frontier Coding Agents on Original, Long-Horizon Engineering Tasks

DeepSWE is a benchmark of 113 original, long-horizon software engineering tasks for evaluating coding agents. Most public agentic coding benchmarks follow SWE-bench in mining merged fixes from public GitHub repositories, which creates two problems: the fixes and their discussion were likely seen during pretraining, so a high score can reflect recall rather than problem-solving; and each task is graded by the tests that shipped with its merged fix, which were written to confirm one specific fix rather than grade an arbitrary solution, so they can fail a correct alternative or pass an incomplete one. DeepSWE avoids both. Its tasks are written from scratch across 91 active open-source repositories and five languages and are never contributed back upstream, so their reference solutions stay out of the public record that model training scrapes; and each task is graded by a hand-written verifier that checks the requested functionality and accepts any implementation that provides it. When an independent LLM judge re-reviews graded runs, it disagrees with DeepSWE's verifier about an order of magnitude less often than with SWE-Bench Pro's inherited tests (1.4% versus 32.4%). Despite being about half the length of SWE-Bench Pro's prompts, DeepSWE's prompts describe tasks whose reference solutions touch 5.5x more code, and the benchmark separates frontier agents across a wider score band than the leaderboards on which they otherwise cluster. We release the benchmark, its verifiers, and the full record of evaluation trajectories.

Wenqi Huang, Charley Lee, Leonard Tng +1

1Datacurve

AI Coding Agents Software Engineering Benchmarks Long-Horizon Agent Evaluation

Jul 7, 2026cs.SE

RuBench: A Repository-Level Agentic Coding Benchmark with Natively Authored Russian Task Specifications

Developers increasingly delegate real maintenance work to product-grade coding agents, and many state tasks in their native language, in the style of a customer request rather than a curated English issue. Existing repository-level agentic benchmarks do not measure this setting: their task statements are English by design. We introduce RuBench 1.0, a benchmark of 25 tasks mined from recent fix commits in five live open-source repositories (aiohttp, aiogram, Laravel, NestJS, Fastify; Python, PHP, TypeScript, JavaScript), where each task is specified natively in Russian -- written from scratch in the style of an actual customer request, not translated -- and judged by the upstream maintainer's regression tests, which we withhold from release. All 25 fix commits postdate the training-data cutoffs of every evaluated model, giving a contamination argument that holds task-by-task. We evaluate deployed product configurations (CLI agent + model + reasoning effort) -- Claude Code with Opus 4.8, Sonnet 5, and Haiku 4.5, and Codex CLI with GPT-5.5 -- with three independent runs each, reporting pass@1 with task-level confidence intervals, paired comparisons, dollar cost, and token usage. The best configuration resolves 78.7% of tasks; at N=25 only the gaps to the weakest model are statistically resolvable, which we state explicitly. Auditing full trajectories of a fifth, hors-concours configuration (Claude Code + Fable 5, July 2, 2026 release), we caught the product silently substituting the model: on 5 of 25 tasks (20%) an official safeguard fallback re-routed routine HTTP-protocol fixes to Opus 4.8 -- direct, reproducible evidence that the deployed product, not the model, is the unit actually measured. We release task statements, metadata, full agent trajectories, and diffs; grading oracles are withheld, with a SHA-256 manifest committed at publication time.

Evgeny Shilov

Independent Researcher

Computer-Use Agent Benchmarks Tool-Augmented Language Model Agents AI Coding Agents Software Engineering Benchmarks LLM Agent Evaluation

Jul 3, 2026cs.SE

GameEngineBench: Evaluating Coding Agents on Real C++ Runtime Environments

Game engines provide real-time simulation, rendering, physics, interaction, networking, and asset pipelines, making them valuable not only for games but also for 3D applications in healthcare, robotics, architecture, manufacturing, and related domains. Because game development is where these systems are most mature and publicly available, it offers a practical testbed for evaluating coding agents that must modify C++ code within stateful, interactive, real-time systems. We present GameEngineBench, a benchmark for evaluating coding agents on scoped C++ implementation tasks inside Unreal Engine 5 projects, built from nine real-world game repositories. The evaluation set consists of 110 tasks spanning gameplay mechanics, multiplayer behavior, AI and world orchestration, animation and movement, UI and session code, loading behavior, online-service integration, persistence, data serialization, XR behavior, and rendering-oriented plugins. These tasks require models to make native C++ changes that compile and satisfy behavioral tests within executable Unreal Engine projects. Across twelve evaluated configurations, the strongest model reaches 55.5% pass@1, while 31 tasks remain unsolved by every configuration. Our results demonstrate that frontier coding agents continue to struggle with deeply integrated C++ development for real-time interactive software, highlighting game-engine benchmarks as a valuable complement to existing software engineering evaluations.

Brian La, Sejoon Chang, Ben Kim +5

Nitrode · Nexon Intelligence Labs · Dartmouth College +3

Coding Agents Software Engineering Benchmarks Code Generation

Jul 2, 2026cs.SE

TestEvo-Bench: An Executable and Live Benchmark for Test and Code Co-Evolution

Software tests and code evolve together: a code change should be followed by new or updated tests that record the new software behavior. Yet existing test generation and update benchmarks often isolate the test from the code change, and rely on static metadata that does not verify whether a test is executable or semantically tied to the code change. This makes it difficult to evaluate whether a test automation agent understands how a code change should propagate into the test suite. We introduce TestEvo-Bench, a benchmark of test and code co-evolution tasks mined from software repositories, with two tracks: in test generation, the agent shall write new tests to capture the new software behavior; in test update, the agent shall adapt failing existing tests to the changed software behavior. Each task is anchored to a real commit history and packaged with environment configuration to support execution-grounded metrics such as pass rate, coverage, and mutation score. TestEvo-Bench is also a live benchmark: each task records the timestamp of the test and code changes, and new tasks are periodically mined by our automated pipeline, so evaluation can be restricted to tasks postdating a model's training cutoff to reduce data leakage risk. The current snapshot contains 746 test generation and 509 test update tasks, curated from 59,950 candidate co-evolution records across 152 open-source Java projects. We experiment with four state-of-the-art agents that combine strong harnesses (Claude Code, Gemini CLI, and SWE-Agent) with strong foundation models (Claude Opus 4.7 and Gemini 3.1 Pro). Results show that they achieve up to 77.5% success rate on test generation and 74.6% on test update. However, success rate is materially lower on the most recent benchmark tasks and drops significantly under limited per-task cost.

Jiale Amber Wang, Kaiyuan Wang, Pengyu Nie

University of Waterloo · 2Google

Automated Software Testing Benchmark Design Software Engineering Benchmarks AI Agent Evaluation Automated Test Generation

Jul 1, 2026cs.SE

Are Performance-Optimization Benchmarks Reliably Measuring Coding Agents?

Repository-level performance-optimization benchmarks such as GSO, SWE-Perf and SWE-fficiency evaluate coding agents by applying patches to real repositories and comparing runtime against unoptimized baselines and official reference patches. Their leaderboard scores are increasingly used as evidence of coding-agent progress, but those scores can conflate runtime instability, benchmark-specific scoring rules, and how many tasks are already solved by at least one public submission. We audit these issues across the three benchmarks. First, we replay the official reference patches for 740 code optimization tasks across four common types of Google Cloud machines. Most benchmark tasks can be replayed, but their reference patches satisfy the original benchmark validity rules in every cross-machine replay for only 39/102 GSO tasks, 11/140 SWE-Perf tasks, and 411/498 SWE-fficiency tasks; SWE-Perf is especially fragile because many reference patches produce close-to-zero runtime changes. Second, we show that public submission rankings depend strongly on the benchmark scoring rule. Among eight public submissions shared by GSO and SWE-fficiency, the official rankings disagree on 9 of 28 pairwise submission comparisons, and SWE-fficiency's leaderboard scoring rule assigns the worst ten tasks overly high score weights of 58.5%-82.8%. Third, looking across 10 public submissions for each task, we find that at least one submission matches or beats the reference patch on 85.3% (384/450) of replay-valid GSO and SWE-fficiency tasks, and beats the unoptimized base code on 99.8% (449/450). Our study complements leaderboard scores by identifying tasks with more reliable performance signals, quantifying per-task score contributions, and exposing the remaining performance gaps that are hidden by aggregate rankings.

Zhi Chen, Zhensu Sun, Yuling Shi +2

Singapore Management University · Singapore, Singapore · Shanghai Jiao Tong University +1

Benchmark Auditing Benchmark Design Software Engineering Benchmarks AI Agent Evaluation

Jun 29, 2026cs.SE

Loc2Repair: A Framework for Evaluating the Impact of File-Level Issue Localization in Repo-Level LLM Repair

Repository-grounded automated repair is often reported as a single end-to-end capability, which hides distinct failure modes such as poor file targeting, incorrect patch synthesis, and failed iterative debugging. We present Loc2Repair, a modular evaluation framework for controlled analysis of repository-grounded repair pipelines, and use it to isolate file-level issue localization as an upstream variable. Loc2Repair decouples localization and repair under a shared runtime, artifact schema, and evaluation harness, allowing researchers to combine different localization models and repair backbones under matched conditions. Using three repair backbones on SWE-bench Verified, we compare baseline repair without explicit localization, repair guided by predicted localization from two localizers, and repair guided by gold modified-file sets. Explicit localization consistently improves resolved rate across all backbones: pooled performance increases from 44.7% for baseline repair to 48.9% and 49.1% with predicted localization, and to 52.4% with gold localization. Localization also reduces mean elapsed time overall: in pooled paired analysis, mean elapsed time decreases by 100.94 s and 52.25 s for the two predicted-localization settings, and by 154.45 s with gold guidance, although token effects remain heterogeneous across models. Overall, Loc2Repair shows file-level localization is a consistent repair lever, improving effectiveness and mean latency in pooled analysis, while gold-guided failures expose headroom beyond localization.

Mohammad Nour Al Awad, Sergey Ivanov

ITMO University

Automated Program Repair Software Engineering Benchmarks Fault Diagnosis

Jun 29, 2026cs.LG

SWE-INTERACT: Reimagining SWE Benchmarks as User-Driven Long-Horizon Coding Sessions

We introduce SWE-Interact, a new testbed for evaluating coding agents on multi-turn, interactive, user-driven software engineering tasks. Existing frontier SWE benchmarks typically provide complete requirements upfront and evaluate agents on autonomous implementation. In contrast, SWE-Interact places agents in a realistic developer workflow: a carefully designed user simulator starts with vague or incomplete instructions, progressively reveals requirements, inspects the agent's workspace, and provides targeted feedback, revisions, and new constraints until the full task goal has been handed off. Grounded in large-scale studies of real coding-agent interactions, this setup tests whether agents can discover user intent, adapt to evolving requirements, and build on their own prior work. Across a suite of frontier and open-weight models, we find that strong performance on single-turn SWE tasks does not reliably transfer to multi-turn, user-driven workflows: the best-performing models solve roughly 50% of single-turn baseline tasks but only 25% of the corresponding SWE-Interact tasks. The strongest models in our evaluation, including Opus 4.8 and GPT 5.5, start strong even in the face of vague initial instructions, persevere until all the requirements are surfaced by the user, integrate them better and write clean code. However, they still suffer from over-agentic coding, forgetting requirements and technical mistakes. Weaker models start poorly under ambiguity, give up early, forget or ignore instructions and rework their code more. Overall, SWE-Interact measures an orthogonal, real-world capability axis for frontier model development: interactive goal discovery and iterative refinement with a user in the loop.

Mohit Raghavendra, Anisha Gunjal, Aakash Sabharwal +1

1Scale AI

Coding Agents Software Engineering Benchmarks AI Agent Evaluation User Simulation

Jun 28, 2026cs.SE

SAKE: Software Architectural Knowledge Evaluation Benchmark for Large Language Models

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used as assistants across the software development lifecycle, yet their ability to reason about software architecture remains largely unmeasured. Architectural decision-making depends on quality attribute trade-offs, design patterns, and system-level constraints, none of which are exercised by benchmarks that target syntactic or algorithmic tasks. We introduce SAKE (Software Architectural Knowledge Evaluation), a standardized and reproducible benchmark for assessing software architectural knowledge in LLMs. SAKE comprises 2154 expert-curated multiple-choice questions, each with four options, stratified across eight architectural categories and four context-length levels. We evaluate 11 proprietary and open-weight models in zero-shot and five-shot settings. Overall accuracy is high, but performance varies markedly across categories, revealing competency gaps in areas central to professional practice. SAKE, its evaluation scripts, and all results are released as open source to give the community a baseline for tracking architectural reasoning in LLMs.

Tiziano Santilli, Francesco Daghero, Mayhar Tourchi Moghaddam

University of Southern Denmark, Odense 5300, DK

Software Engineering LLM Evaluation Software Engineering Benchmarks

Jun 28, 2026cs.AI

Pooled Leaderboards Hide System-Specific Winners: A Reporting-Protocol Audit of Offline Root-Cause Analysis Benchmarks

Offline root-cause-analysis (RCA) benchmarks commonly rank methods by a single pooled top-1 accuracy across multiple subsystems, and engineers often read the pooled winner as a recommendation for their own subsystem. We audit that reading on three public RCA benchmark families -- OpenRCA, RCAEval, and PetShop -- covering 11 subsystems and 778 matched scoring units. To keep pairwise comparisons on identical cases, the main analysis retains four methods or comparators with complete coverage: BARO, a CD-1min adapter, max-

|Z|

, and per-service alert-count. All six pairwise comparisons show subsystem-level effects of both signs, every random-effects 95% prediction interval crosses zero, and case-level interaction tests reject exchangeability in 5 of 6 pairs. Leave-one-system-out selection picks the lower-scoring method on up to 5 of 11 held-out subsystems, with regret reaching 24.8 pp on RCAEval / Sock-Shop. We release a 320-line audit module; given a matched RCA benchmark score table, it recomputes the same per-subsystem stability checks alongside pooled scores.

Lining Hu, Ting Liu, Yuzhuo Fu

School of Electronic, Information and Electrical Engineering Shanghai Jiao Tong University Shanghai, China

Pairwise Comparison Algorithmic Auditing Benchmark Auditing Software Engineering Benchmarks Benchmark Validity Root Cause Analysis

Jun 27, 2026cs.SE

Diff-Based Code Corruption using LLMs for Large-Scale Bugfix Benchmarking

There are various benchmarks to evaluate bugfixing capabilities of Large Language Models. However, most widespread benchmarks do not fully reflect real-world bugfixing practices. They are small, weakening statistical reliability, and the buggy programs are often similar to one another, potentially distorting evaluation results. The range of bug types can also be narrow, failing to capture a representative range of bugs. To address these issues, we introduce MegaBugFix, a large-scale bugfixing benchmark containing 12,629 buggy Python programs synthesized from correct ones by a Large Language Model. Bug injections were generated as diffs representing code changes. Through this approach, we were able to avoid common pitfalls of LLM-based mutation techniques like injecting overly simplistic bugs or failing to modify the input program. We evaluated 13 open-weight models on MegaBugFix and baseline benchmarks, finding consistently lower performance on MegaBugFix. This reveals that our benchmark presents more challenging bugs and exposes model failures that may remain hidden when evaluating on existing benchmarks. The benchmark and fine-tuned model used for bug injection are available at hf.co/collections/szalontaib/megabugfix.

Balázs Szalontai, Ábel Szauter, Balázs Márton +3

Eötvös Loránd University · Faculty of Informatics

Software Engineering Automated Program Repair Software Engineering Benchmarks Synthetic Benchmark Generation

Jun 24, 2026cs.SE

Evaluating LLMs on Real-World Software Performance Optimization

Software performance optimization is a notoriously complex and manual task. Despite the growing use of Large Language Models (LLMs) for code refinement, we still lack benchmarks that capture how optimization actually happens in real-world codebases. Existing frameworks often oversimplify the problem by focusing on isolated functions or a single performance metric, missing the critical trade-offs between execution time and memory footprint, the inherent noise of the measurement environment, and the variability introduced by different input data and execution conditions. We address this by introducing SWE-Pro, a repository-level benchmark derived from 102 expert-written optimizations from open-source projects. Unlike previous benchmarks, SWE-Pro pairs each task with parameterized tests to evaluate runtime, peak memory, and Time-Weighted Memory Usage (TWMU) across varying input data and execution conditions under noise-aware measurement conditions. Our evaluation shows that current LLMs struggle significantly: runtime gains are negligible, and memory optimizations are nearly non-existent. This stands in sharp contrast to expert implementations, which achieve an aggregate speedup of 15.5x and peak memory reduction of 171.3x over benchmark tasks. Expert-written improvements are observed in 91.2% of tasks for runtime and 65.7% for peak memory. Our findings expose a substantial gap between current LLM capabilities and the demands of expert-level engineering.

Ezgi Sarıkayak, Wenchao Gu, Hesham Ghonim +1

Siemens AG · Technical University of Munich Munich, Germany · Technical University of Munich Heilbronn, Germany

Software Engineering LLM Evaluation Benchmark Design Software Engineering Benchmarks

Jun 17, 2026cs.SE

StaminaBench: Stress-Testing Coding Agents over 100 Interaction Turns

We introduce StaminaBench, a benchmark that measures the stamina of coding agents: how many consecutive interaction turns (change requests) they can handle before failing. Unlike the prevailing fraction-of-tasks-solved metric, this matches real vibe-coding where sessions run dozens or hundreds of turns. In StaminaBench, agents implement a REST API server and modify it across a tunable number of procedurally generated follow-up change requests - 100 in our experiments, resulting in codebases of up to 6,000 lines. Tests are generated fully programmatically without LLM involvement, ensuring reproducibility and reliability; change sequences are drawn from either a hardcoded or LLM-driven sampler, both constrained to a structured action space to ensure changes are valid. The agent and the server run in an isolated environment and communicate with the benchmark through HTTP, making testing fully black-box and language-agnostic. We evaluate six agent harnesses paired with seven open-source LLMs across 20 scenarios of 100 turns each and find that: (1) all the tested models fail within 5-6 turns, confirming that vibe-coding-style programming without thorough testing produces bugs; (2) passing test feedback back to the agent and allowing it to retry improves passed turn count by up to 12x; and (3) a good harness is required for strong performance: stronger models exhibit up to a 6x gap between their best and worst harness, while weaker models fail with any harness. We release the benchmark and the generated tasks to enable further research into multi-turn coding agent behavior. Benchmark code and data: github.com/amazon-science/StaminaBench.

Vlad Sobal, Shuo Yang, Yuting Zhang +2

AWS Agentic AI

AI Coding Agents Benchmark Design Software Engineering Benchmarks Long-Horizon Agent Evaluation Code Generation Benchmarks

Jun 17, 2026cs.SE

SWE-Future: Forecast-Conditioned Data Synthesis for Future-Oriented Software Engineering Agents

Realistic coding-agent benchmarks often replay public GitHub issues and pull requests, making them vulnerable to overlap with model pretraining, fine-tuning, synthetic-data generation, or benchmark-driven model selection. Fully synthetic tasks avoid direct historical replay, but can drift away from real repository needs. We propose SWE-Future, a forecast-conditioned data synthesis method for future-oriented coding tasks. Given a forecast snapshot at time

T_0

, the method uses only pre-

T_0

repository evidence to forecast future feature implementation/enhancement, bugfix, and refactor task families. We first validate this forecasting step retrospectively: after forecasts are fixed, later pull requests are used only to measure whether the predicted task families match future repository work. In an 80-repository study, the forecaster achieves 58.1% future-work relevance under the main semantic matching metric. We then use validated forecast families as conditioning signals to synthesize a 200-task coding-agent dataset across 61 repositories from a task-generation snapshot, rather than replaying the later pull requests used for validation. SWE-Future shows that repository-evolution forecasts can guide realistic, future-oriented coding-task synthesis while reducing direct dependence on historical pull-request replay.

Qiao Zhao, JianYing Qu, Jun Zhang +3

Baidu Inc.

Software Engineering Agents Software Engineering Benchmarks Synthetic Benchmark Generation Conditional Generation

Jun 16, 2026cs.SE

Position: Coding Benchmarks Are Misaligned with Agentic Software Engineering

Coding agents have become a major mode of software engineering, but the benchmarks we use to compare them were designed in a pre-agent era: they collapse model, harness, and environment into a single end-to-end score, typically computed against one reference solution, with no component-level signal for iteration. We argue that current coding benchmarks are misaligned with agentic software engineering. A coding agent in practice is not a model: it is a system harness -- a composite of models, harnesses, contexts, environments, and feedback signals, any one of which can move the benchmark score by margins comparable to those between adjacent model generations. We discuss three symptoms: (i) benchmark scores conflate the model with the rest of the harness; (ii) grading against a single reference solution penalises equally valid alternatives; and (iii) the absence of signal at the level of individual harness components makes the end-to-end system score difficult to iterate on.

Maria I. Gorinova, Macey Baker, Amy Heineike +3

Tessl London, UK

AI Coding Agents Benchmark Design Software Engineering Benchmarks AI Agent Benchmarks

Jun 13, 2026cs.AI

CODA-BENCH: Can Code Agents Handle Data-Intensive Tasks?

Advanced agents are increasingly demonstrating the potential to operate as autonomous engineers, creating a growing demand for evaluation benchmarks that capture the complexity of real-world development. Such environments typically involve both complex code and large-scale data (i.e., file system). However, existing benchmarks usually evaluate code-centric or data-centric capabilities in isolation, leaving a clear gap with real development scenarios. In this paper, we bridge this gap by introducing CODA-BENCH, the first benchmark to jointly evaluate code and data intelligence in a data-intensive environment. We construct a data-intensive Linux sandbox based on the Kaggle ecosystem (containing hundreds of datasets), where agents must actively explore complex file hierarchies to identify relevant resources and generate code for data-driven analytical tasks. CODA-BENCH comprises 1,009 tasks spanning 31 communities, with each task environment containing an average of 980 files, simulating realistic data scale and noise. Evaluations of advanced agents reveal that even top-performing systems struggle to effectively integrate data discovery with code execution, achieving a success rate of only 61.1%. These results highlight a substantial gap in current agentic capabilities for data-intensive tasks and point to promising directions for future research.

Yuxin Zhang, Ju Fan, Meihao Fan +2

Renmin University of China

AI Coding Agents Software Engineering Benchmarks Code Generation AI Agent Benchmarks Code Generation Benchmarks

Jun 10, 2026cs.LG

Claw-SWE-Bench: A Benchmark for Evaluating OpenClaw-style Agent Harnesses on Coding Tasks

The software engineering capabilities of general-purpose agent harnesses remain underexplored, and existing benchmarks offer limited support for comparing these harnesses under consistent conditions. To address this gap, we introduce Claw-SWE-Bench, a unified benchmark that enables researchers to systematically assess the capabilities and efficiency of general-purpose harnesses on software engineering tasks. The benchmark contains 350 real-world GitHub issue-resolution instances across eight programming languages and 43 repositories and provides a shared adapter protocol to align task inputs, outputs, and execution environments across harnesses. Experiments show that general-purpose harnesses can effectively resolve real-world software issues and that their success rates and resource consumption vary substantially even when the underlying model is held fixed. To lower evaluation costs and support faster debugging and iteration, we also provide Claw-SWE-Bench Lite, an 80-instance subset designed to preserve the key evaluation properties of the full benchmark. We hope this benchmark will help researchers better evaluate and understand the performance of general-purpose harnesses on software engineering tasks and guide the development of more capable and efficient harnesses. The data is available at https://github.com/opensquilla/claw-swe-bench and https://huggingface.co/datasets/TokenRhythm/Claw-SWE-Bench.

Mengyu Zheng, Kai Han, Boxun Li +13

TokenRhythm Technologies · Infinigence AI · Peking University +5

AI Coding Agents Software Engineering Benchmarks Agent Evaluation AI Agent Benchmarks

Jun 5, 2026cs.SE

SWE-Explore: Benchmarking How Coding Agents Explore Repositories

Repository-level coding benchmarks such as SWE-bench have driven a rapid surge in the capabilities of coding agents. Yet they usually treat coding tasks as a holistic, binary prediction problem (e.g., resolved or unresolved), neglecting fine-grained agent capabilities such as repository understanding, context retrieval, code localization, and bug diagnosis. In this paper, we introduce SWE-Explore, a benchmark that isolates the evaluation of repository exploration, a critical capability of coding agents. Given a repository and an issue, SWE-Explore asks an explorer to return a ranked list of relevant code regions under a fixed line budget. SWE-Explore covers 848 issues across 10 programming languages and 203 open-source repositories. For each instance, we derive line-level ground truth from independent agent trajectories that successfully solved the same issue, distilling the specific code regions their solution paths actually consulted. We evaluate exploration along coverage, ranking, and context-efficiency dimensions, showing that these metrics strongly track downstream repair behavior. Across a broad set of retrieval methods, general coding agents, and specialized localizers, we find that agentic explorers form a clear tier above classical retrieval. While file-level localization is already strong for modern methods, line-level coverage and efficient ranking remain the key axes differentiating state-of-the-art explorers.

Shaoqiu Zhang, Yuhang Wang, Jialiang Liang +8

1Shanghai Jiao Tong University · 2Xinjiang University · 4Independent Researcher +2

AI Coding Agents Agentic Search Software Engineering Benchmarks Information Retrieval

Jun 5, 2026cs.SE

SWE-Marathon: Can Agents Autonomously Complete Ultra-Long-Horizon Software Work?

AI agents are increasingly expected to complete long-horizon workflows that require sustained progress over hours, millions of tokens, and complex environments. Yet current agent benchmarks largely evaluate short-form tasks, such as single pull requests, small tickets, or 5-10 minute exercises, limiting our ability to measure agents' capabilities in planning, long-context understanding, and memory use. We introduce SWE-Marathon, a benchmark of 20 long-horizon tasks spanning software engineering and adjacent technical domains. Each task consists of a unique executable environment, a human-written reference solution, and a multi-layer verification suite. Logged agent attempts average 27.2M total tokens, making SWE-Marathon substantially longer-horizon than existing SWE and command-line agent benchmarks. Current frontier coding agents solve fewer than 30% of tasks. Failures often arise from poor self-verification, self-reported infeasibility, and premature termination. We also observe reward-hacking behavior in 13.8% of rollouts, where agents attempt to exploit the environment or verifier to bypass the intended workflow. SWE-Marathon includes adversarial review of test suites and execution environments, as well as multi-layer checks designed to prevent shortcut solutions. We release SWE-Marathon, evaluation code, and agent trajectories at https://swe-marathon.org/.

Rishi Desai, Jesse Hu, Joan Cabezas +23

Abundant · Zenity · Harvard University +14

AI Coding Agents Software Engineering Benchmarks Long-Horizon Agent Evaluation Long-Horizon Agent Tasks

Jun 4, 2026cs.CL

TensorBench: Benchmarking Coding Agents on a Compiler-Based Tensor Framework

Repository-level coding benchmarks face a trade-off between task difficulty and evaluation reliability: tasks that challenge frontier models often involve large codebases with incomplete test coverage, while human review does not scale. We introduce TensorBench, a benchmark of 199 feature-addition and refactoring tasks on an open-source compiler-based tensor framework that extends PyTorch with first-class support for dense and sparse tensors. Tasks cover new sparse formats, dense optimization passes, IR transformations, scheduler changes, runtime components, and high-level numerical operators. TensorBench grades each run by applying the agent's patch and running the framework's test suite, which includes the pre-existing randomized regression tests and any tests the agent adds. For feature-addition tasks, a pass means that the patched repository preserves the tested pre-existing behavior and satisfies the agent-added checks for the requested feature. We evaluate seven coding agents spanning three frontier model families and one open-weight model. Pass rates under this criterion range from

64.8\%

for the strongest agent to

22.1\%

for the weakest. Agents pass different subsets of tasks: pairwise Cohen's

κ

ranges from

-0.07

to

0.43

, with

κ= 0.05

for the two strongest agents.

Bobby Yan, Fredrik Kjolstad

Department of Computer Science Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305

AI Coding Agents Benchmark Design Software Engineering Benchmarks AI Agent Benchmarks

Jun 2, 2026cs.CL

RealClawBench: Live OpenClaw Benchmarks from Real Developer-Agent Sessions

Agent benchmarks should reflect what users actually ask deployed agents to do, yet existing benchmarks often miss key realism properties of real developer-agent sessions. We introduce RealClawBench, a live benchmark framework built from real OpenClaw sessions to capture the distribution, diversity, and real-world difficulty of deployed agent use. Real user requests are challenging to benchmark because they often depend on local execution environments, involve implicit or underspecified intent, and require nontrivial verification. RealClawBench addresses these challenges with two core mechanisms: reconstructed execution environments and deterministic verifiable scorers, which together convert real sessions into reproducible, automatically scored tasks. The resulting release contains 281 executable tasks sampled from a much larger real-session pool while preserving the source distribution, with maximum final-vs-source Jensen-Shannon divergence of 0.0448. Evaluating 14 contemporary models shows that the best system solves only 65.8% of tasks, revealing substantial headroom on realistic developer-agent workloads. By turning real deployed sessions into controlled evaluation instances, RealClawBench provides a practical path toward benchmarks that better measure agent capability in actual use. Code is available at:https://anonymous.4open.science/r/real-claw-bench-582B.

Zongwei Lv, Zhewen Tan, Yaoming Li +7

1Peking University · 2Qiyuan Tech · 2Qiyuan Tech*

Computer-Use Agent Benchmarks AI Coding Agents Software Engineering Benchmarks AI Agent Benchmarks Automated Evaluation Agent Benchmarks

Jun 1, 2026cs.AI

Handoff Debt: The Rediscovery Cost When Coding Agents Take Over Interrupted Tasks

Coding-agent benchmarks evaluate whether a single uninterrupted agent can resolve a repository issue. Real software work is messier: tasks are interrupted, reassigned, reviewed, and resumed from partial states left by another agent or engineer. We study this missing dimension through handoff debt: the rediscovery cost imposed when a predecessor's work is opaque or incomplete. Our takeover protocol interrupts a coding agent at deterministic handoff points, freezes the repository, and evaluates successor agents under four handoff views: repository state only, raw trace, summary notes, and structured notes. Across 75 source tasks, the protocol generates 181 handoff-point tasks and 724 takeover runs per successor model. Across three successor models, context-bearing handoffs reduce median agent events by 20-59% and cumulative prompt tokens by 42-63% relative to repository-only takeover. Solved-rate effects are smaller and model-dependent, but efficiency gains are consistent. These findings suggest that coding-agent evaluation should report not only whether a task is solved, but also how costly that work is for another agent to resume.

Dipesh KC, Anjila Budathoki

Independent Researcher · Georgia State University

Coding Agents Software Engineering Benchmarks LLM Agent Orchestration LLM Agent Evaluation Multi-Agent Collaboration

May 29, 2026cs.AI

TraceGraph: Shared Decision Landscapes for Diagnosing and Improving Agent Trajectories

Agent benchmarks increasingly record rich interaction trajectories, yet evaluation often reduces each rollout to a pass rate or reward score. We introduce TraceGraph, a graph-based framework that turns released multi-model agent trajectories into shared decision landscapes. For each task, TraceGraph builds a graph over observable action-observation states from pooled rollouts before model identity is introduced. It then overlays outcome-informed productive cores and trap regions, and summarizes each rollout with three events: Access, Trap exposure, and Repair. Across trajectories spanning five benchmark splits, TraceGraph profiles reveal navigation differences hidden by aggregate scores and show that splits differ in whether they reward avoiding traps or recovering from them. The same TraceGraph landscape also motivates a trap-aware recovery pipeline for SWE-bench: aruntime detector fires on states matching historical trap regions, then lightweight continuation policies are evaluated from the same prefix. On fired states, the best pooled single-factor policy raises official resolved rate from 40.4% to 43.5% on the per-provider fired subset and from 41.0% to 44.8% on common-fired instances, with provider-specific active components. Overall, TraceGraph provides a process vocabulary for asking what agent benchmarks test, where models diverge on a shared landscape, and how failure regions can guide downstream improvement.

Junjie Nian, Kang Chen, Ge Zhang +2

1Fudan University · 2ByteDance · 3Shanghai Innovation Institute

Agent Reliability Software Engineering Benchmarks AI Agent Evaluation AI Agent Benchmarks Agent Trajectory Analysis

May 28, 2026cs.MA

SpecBench: Evaluating Specification-Level Reasoning for Software Engineering LLM Agents

Software engineering (SWE) agents are transitioning from code generation to full software development lifecycle automation. A critical phase in this lifecycle is specification design: transforming initial proposals into carefully considered requirements through expert review. Existing benchmarks such as SWE-Bench are implementation-focused by measuring the agent's ability to generate code given fixed, precise design requirements. This formulation assumes specifications are correct and complete. In real-world complex and critical software systems, initial specifications are often incomplete and flawed, requiring extensive expert reviews and revisions before being accepted for implementation. To fill this gap, we introduce SpecBench to evaluate specification-level reasoning: the ability to generate complete, unambiguous, consistent, and correct system specifications. SpecBench tasks are derived from the Request for Comments (RFC) process used by mature open-source projects. For each task, an agent is given an initial design proposal, the project codebase, and all past project RFC discussions. The agent is tasked with identifying specification deficiencies: omissions, ambiguities, inconsistencies, or incorrect assumptions in the initial proposal. We evaluate predictions against critiques raised by expert maintainers during historical RFC reviews. SpecBench contains tasks from 5 diverse repositories: Kubernetes, React, Rust, TVM, and vLLM. We evaluate state-of-the-art SWE agents on SpecBench, analyzing their capacity to reason about system design without execution feedback. The best performing agent, GPT-5.4, achieves 44.4% accuracy.

Grant Hamblin, Kevin Song, Zhanda Zhu +4

University of Toronto · Toronto, Ontario, Canada · University of Waterloo +3

Requirements Engineering Software Engineering Agents Software Engineering Benchmarks LLM Agent Evaluation

May 28, 2026cs.SE

Code-QA-Bench: Separating Code Reasoning from Documentation Memorization in Repository-Level QA

We present Code-QA-Bench, a fully automated framework for synthesizing repository-level code understanding benchmarks that separates genuine code comprehension from documentation recall and pretraining memorization. The framework makes two methodological contributions: (1) an answer-first generation pipeline where a tool-equipped agent explores source code to produce verified gold answers before deriving questions, ensuring every task is grounded in real code structure; and (2) a three-condition experimental design evaluating agents under closed-book (no repository), code-only (documentation removed), and documented (full repository) conditions, with deltas directly quantifying documentation utility and memorization. We generate 528 code-derivable and 100 doc-dependent tasks across 10 Python repositories from SWE-Bench, scored by an LLM judge on accuracy, completeness, and specificity. Experiments on four frontier models reveal that code access is the dominant factor (+0.23 mean gain over closed-book), documentation provides modest additional benefit (+0.071 on doc-dependent tasks), and code-only

\approx

documented on code-derivable tasks, validating the design. The framework is open-source and applicable to any well-documented Python repository.

Jun Zhang, JianYing Qu, Hanwen Du +3

Baidu Inc.

Software Engineering Benchmarks LLM Memory