SWE-Bench Verified

The End of SWE-Bench Verified — Mia Glaese & Olivia Watkins, OpenAI Frontier Evals

Feb 23, 2026 · 27:10

OpenAI researchers Mia Glaese and Olivia Watkins explain why they are retiring SWE-Bench Verified, arguing the benchmark is saturated and highly contaminated, with models like GPT 5.2 regurgitating ground-truth solutions or task IDs. They detail how a contamination auditor agent found evidence across Claude Opus 4.5 and Gemini Flash, and how over half of unsolved problems had unfair tests (e.g., requiring specific function names not in the spec). The team is pivoting to SWE-Bench Pro from Scale, which features harder, longer tasks (1-4+ hours), more diverse repos and languages, and far less contamination. They advocate for future coding evals to measure open-ended design decisions, code quality, maintainability, and real-world product building, while also calling for more real-world usage metrics to track AI's impact on jobs and productivity.

[State of Code Evals] After SWE-bench, Code Clash & SOTA Coding Benchmarks recap — John Yang

Dec 31, 2025 · 17:45

John Yang, creator of SWE-bench, explains the benchmark's evolution from an ignored project to the industry standard after Cognition's Devin launch, and introduces CodeClash as a new paradigm for evaluating long-horizon coding agents via programming tournaments. Yang covers SWE-bench's expansion into nine languages (JavaScript, Rust, Java, C, Ruby) and multimodal tasks, the proliferation of independent variants like SWE-bench Pro and SWE-bench Live, and the shift from unit tests to iterative agent competitions. He addresses the Tau-bench controversy over impossible tasks, arguing they serve as cheat detection, and weighs the tension between long autonomy (5-hour runs) and interactivity (Cognition's fast back-and-forth). Yang highlights the academic data problem—companies like Cognition have rich user interaction data, while academics need user simulators or compelling products like LMArena—and positions CodeClash as a testbed for studying human-AI collaboration by freezing model capability and varying interaction setups.

[Paper Club] SWE-Bench [OpenAI Verified/Multimodal] + MLE-Bench with Jesse Hu

Oct 19, 2024 · 1:01:40

Jesse Hu walks through SWE-Bench, SWE-Bench Verified, SWE-Bench Multimodal, and MLE-Bench — benchmarks that evaluate AI agents on real-world coding and ML tasks, from fixing GitHub issues to winning Kaggle competitions. SWE-Bench scrapes 2,000+ pull requests from 12 Python repos to get free unit tests, with leaderboard scores rising from ~2% to 43% thanks to improved agent scaffolding. SWE-Bench Verified uses human raters and three criteria—well-specified problem, valid test, difficulty on a 0–3 scale—to filter 500 solvable tasks. SWE-Bench Multimodal targets 617 UI tasks from 17 JavaScript/TypeScript libraries, each including an image, but achieves only 12% accuracy. MLE-Bench repurposes Kaggle competitions: agents given 24 hours and an A10 GPU, with o1-preview scoring bronze in 17% of competitions and surpassing grandmasters (7 gold medals vs 5 required), though each run costs $4,000.