Skip to content
← Back to explorer

HFEPX Benchmark Hub

SWE-bench In CS.CL Papers

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Mar 8, 2026). 6 papers are grouped in this benchmark page.

Read Full Context

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Mar 8, 2026). 6 papers are grouped in this benchmark page. Common evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics. Most common rater population: Domain Experts. Common annotation unit: Multi Dim Rubric. Frequently cited benchmark: SWE-bench. Common metric signal: pass@1. Use this page to compare protocol setup, judge behavior, and labeling design decisions before running new eval experiments. Newest paper in this set is from Feb 19, 2026.

Papers: 6 Last published: Feb 19, 2026 Global RSS

Researcher Quick Triage

Use this page for benchmark-matched method comparisons and eval protocol selection. Quality band: Developing .

High-Signal Coverage

100.0%

6 / 6 sampled papers are not low-signal flagged.

Replication-Ready Set

1

Papers with explicit benchmark + metric + eval mode fields.

Quality Controls

0.0%

0 papers report calibration/adjudication/IAA controls.

  • 2 papers explicitly name benchmark datasets in the sampled set.
  • 1 papers report at least one metric term in metadata extraction.
  • Start with the ranked shortlist below before reading all papers.

Primary action: Use this page to map benchmark mentions first; wait for stronger metric/QC coverage before strict comparisons.

Why This Matters (Expanded)

Why This Matters For Eval Research

  • 16.7% of papers report explicit human-feedback signals, led by rubric ratings.
  • automatic metrics appears in 16.7% of papers in this hub.
  • SWE-bench is a recurring benchmark anchor for cross-paper comparisons in this page.
Protocol Notes (Expanded)

Protocol Takeaways

  • Quality-control reporting is sparse in this slice; prioritize papers with explicit calibration or adjudication steps.
  • Rater context is mostly domain experts, and annotation is commonly multi-dimensional rubrics; use this to scope replication staffing.
  • Stratify by benchmark (SWE-bench vs SWE-bench Verified) before comparing methods.

Benchmark Interpretation

  • SWE-bench appears in 100% of hub papers (6/6); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.
  • SWE-bench Verified appears in 33.3% of hub papers (2/6); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.

Metric Interpretation

  • pass@1 is reported in 33.3% of hub papers (2/6); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
  • cost is reported in 16.7% of hub papers (1/6); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.

Start Here (Benchmark-Matched First 6)

Ranked by protocol completeness so you can quickly find papers suitable for comparison studies.

Protocol Matrix (Top 10)

Compare protocol ingredients quickly before deep-reading full papers.

Paper Eval Modes Human Feedback Metrics Quality Controls
SWE-Protégé: Learning to Selectively Collaborate With an Expert Unlocks Small Language Models as Software Engineering Agents

Feb 25, 2026

 Automatic Metrics Not reported Pass@1, Latency Not reported
KLong: Training LLM Agent for Extremely Long-horizon Tasks

Feb 19, 2026

 Not reported Rubric Rating Not reported Not reported
$V_1$: Unifying Generation and Self-Verification for Parallel Reasoners

Mar 4, 2026

 Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported
SWE-CI: Evaluating Agent Capabilities in Maintaining Codebases via Continuous Integration

Mar 4, 2026

 Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported
Qwen3-Coder-Next Technical Report

Feb 28, 2026

 Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported
SWE-rebench V2: Language-Agnostic SWE Task Collection at Scale

Feb 27, 2026

 Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported
Researcher Workflow (Detailed)

Checklist

  • Gap: Papers with explicit human feedback

    Coverage is a replication risk (16.7% vs 45% target).

  • Gap: Papers reporting quality controls

    Coverage is a replication risk (0% vs 30% target).

  • Strong: Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

    Coverage is strong (100% vs 35% target).

  • Moderate: Papers naming evaluation metrics

    Coverage is usable but incomplete (33.3% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers with known rater population

    Coverage is a replication risk (16.7% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers with known annotation unit

    Coverage is a replication risk (16.7% vs 35% target).

Strengths

  • Agentic evaluation appears in 33.3% of papers.

Known Gaps

  • Only 0% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (16.7% coverage).
  • Annotation unit is under-specified (16.7% coverage).

Suggested Next Analyses

  • Stratify by benchmark (SWE-bench vs SWE-bench Verified) before comparing methods.
  • Track metric sensitivity by reporting both pass@1 and cost.

Recommended Queries

Benchmark Slice: SWE-benchMetric Slice: pass@1Recent High-Signal Papers
Known Limitations
  • Only 0% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (16.7% coverage).
  • Narrative synthesis is grounded in metadata and abstracts only; full-paper implementation details are not parsed.
Research Utility Snapshot (Detailed)

Evaluation Modes

  • Automatic Metrics (1)

Human Feedback Mix

  • Rubric Rating (1)

Top Benchmarks

  • SWE Bench (6)
  • SWE Bench Verified (2)
  • AIME (1)
  • CodeContests (1)

Top Metrics

  • Pass@1 (2)
  • Cost (1)
  • Latency (1)

Top Papers On This Benchmark

Related Benchmark Hubs

SWE-bench Benchmark Papers SWE-Bench Ecosystem Benchmark Papers CS.CL Papers (Last 30 Days) CS.CL Papers (Last 60 Days) CS.CL Papers (Last 90 Days) HFEPX Quarterly Archive: 2026-Q1 WebArena Ecosystem Benchmark Papers (15) Reasoning & Math Suite Benchmark Papers (16) SWE-Bench Ecosystem Benchmark Papers (10) WebArena Ecosystem Benchmark Papers In CS.CL (10) Reasoning & Math Suite Benchmark Papers In CS.CL (15) Arena/Judge Suite Benchmark Papers (10) Reasoning & Math Suite Benchmark Papers In CS.AI (13)

Need human evaluators for your AI research? Scale annotation with expert AI Trainers.

Post a Job Get a Quote