Skip to content
OpenTrain AIFor AI Companies

SWE-Bench Pro Verified: A Reliable Benchmark for Software Engineering Agents

Pujun Zheng, Zixin Shang, Shufan Jiang, Wenhui Tian, Dongsheng Zhu +3 morePublished Sep 8, 2026
arXiv PDF
Researcher verdict
Context only
Use as context only
Benchmark evidence
Missing
Not verified yet
Time to first repro
A few days
Plan setup time
Risk flags
2
Review before use

Abstract

Domain fit: AI-adjacent · Paper appears method- or tooling-adjacent to AI workflows with partial ecosystem coverage.

SWE-Bench Pro has emerged as a standard benchmark for evaluating software engineering agents on challenging repository-level tasks. However, our analysis work show that its evaluation is undermined by two sources of unreliability: \textbf{reward hacking}, enabled by leakage of gold solutions or hidden evaluation information, and \textbf{task quality issues}, including misleading problem statements and improperly scoped tests. These issues can inflate benchmark performance and obscure agents' true coding ability. We present \textbf{SWE-Bench Pro Verified}, a verified version of SWE-Bench Pro that addresses both problems. Our approach combines \textbf{anti-hacking} safeguards that eliminate major leakage channels without disrupting normal agent functionality, with \textbf{task refinement} that minimally corrects inconsistencies within flawed instances. Evaluations on SWE-Bench Pro Verified reveal that some models perform substantially worse than previously reported, suggesting that existing results on SWE-Bench Pro may overestimate real software engineering capability. SWE-Bench Pro Verified offers a more trustworthy benchmark for assessing software engineering agents.

Results and benchmarks

Freshness tier: warm
SWE-Bench Pro has emerged as a standard benchmark for evaluating software engineering agents on challenging repository-level tasks.

Implementation

No direct implementation yet

Maintained implementation evidence is not confirmed for this paper yet.

Use the implementation status and reproduction sections for the current action plan.

Implementation evidence summary
Confidence: low

Recommendation evidence is currently too limited for a maintained-repo choice. Use Implementation Status and Reproduction Path for a practical baseline plan.

Reproduction risks
  • Estimate is based on paper-only reproduction flow

Compare implementation paths

Compare maintenance quality, reproducibility coverage, and evidence confidence before choosing a reproduction baseline.

Maintenance
Active
Confidence
Low
Reproducibility
Moderate
Stars
0
Last push
Oct 17, 2026 (8d)

Matched via arXiv identifier search

  • No CI pipeline detected
  • No tagged releases
  • Low confidence match
zozo123/nyc-talk
alternative
Maintenance
Active
Confidence
Low
Reproducibility
Limited
Stars
0
Last push
Sep 27, 2026 (28d)

Matched via arXiv identifier search

  • No tagged releases
  • No Docker setup
  • Dependency manifest missing

Reproduction readiness

Time to first repro: days
Last checked: Oct 25, 2026

No repo

No verified implementation available

  • No maintained repository has been identified for this paper. Check adjacent implementations or HF artifacts below.

Hardware requirements

  • Expect multi-day setup/compute for meaningful reproduction based on current guidance.

Repositories and ecosystem

No additional verified repositories beyond the primary recommendation.

Hugging Face artifacts

No trustworthy direct or curated related Hugging Face artifacts were found yet. Use targeted searches to quickly locate candidate models, datasets, and demos.

Tip: start with models, then check datasets and spaces if you need evaluation data or demos.

Research context

Tasks

Agentic tool use

Methods

Agentic systems

Domains

AI Agents

Evaluation and human feedback data

Open this paper in HFEPX to review benchmark signals, evaluation modes, and human-feedback protocol context.

Open in HFEPX
Explore similar papers

Jump to Paper2Code search queries derived from this paper's research context.