Skip to content
OpenTrain AIFor AI Companies
← Back to explorer

SWE-Protégé: Learning to Selectively Collaborate With an Expert Unlocks Small Language Models as Software Engineering Agents

Patrick Tser Jern Kon, Archana Pradeep, Ang Chen, Alexander P. Ellis, Warren Hunt, Zijian Wang, John Yang, Samuel Thompson · Feb 25, 2026 · Citations: 0

Automatic Metrics Coding Long Horizon
Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

How to use this page

Moderate trust

Use this for comparison and orientation, not as your only source.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Validate the evaluation procedure and quality controls in the full paper before operational use.

Evidence quality

Moderate

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

Small language models (SLMs) offer compelling advantages in cost, latency, and adaptability, but have so far lagged behind larger models on long-horizon software engineering tasks such as SWE-bench, where they suffer from pervasive action looping and low resolution rates. We introduce SWE-Protégé, a post-training framework that reframes software repair as an expert-protégé collaboration problem. In SWE-Protégé, an SLM remains the sole decision-maker while learning to selectively seek guidance from a strong expert model, recognize stalled states, and follow through on expert feedback. Our approach combines supervised fine-tuning on expert-augmented trajectories with agentic reinforcement learning that explicitly discourages degenerative looping and unproductive expert collaboration. We lightly post-train Qwen2.5-Coder-7B-Instruct to achieve 42.4% Pass@1 on SWE-bench Verified, a +25.4% improvement over the prior SLM state of the art, while using expert assistance sparsely (~4 calls per task and 11% of total tokens).

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A benchmark-and-metrics comparison anchor.

Main weakness

No major weakness surfaced.

Trust level

Moderate

Usefulness score

25/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Detected

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 55%

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.

Human Feedback Types

missing

None explicit

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.

"Small language models (SLMs) offer compelling advantages in cost, latency, and adaptability, but have so far lagged behind larger models on long-horizon software engineering tasks such as SWE-bench, where they suffer from pervasive action looping and low resolution rates."

Evaluation Modes

strong

Automatic Metrics

Includes extracted eval setup.

"Small language models (SLMs) offer compelling advantages in cost, latency, and adaptability, but have so far lagged behind larger models on long-horizon software engineering tasks such as SWE-bench, where they suffer from pervasive action looping and low resolution rates."

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

No explicit QC controls found.

"Small language models (SLMs) offer compelling advantages in cost, latency, and adaptability, but have so far lagged behind larger models on long-horizon software engineering tasks such as SWE-bench, where they suffer from pervasive action looping and low resolution rates."

Benchmarks / Datasets

strong

SWE Bench, SWE Bench Verified

Useful for quick benchmark comparison.

"Small language models (SLMs) offer compelling advantages in cost, latency, and adaptability, but have so far lagged behind larger models on long-horizon software engineering tasks such as SWE-bench, where they suffer from pervasive action looping and low resolution rates."

Reported Metrics

strong

Pass@1

Useful for evaluation criteria comparison.

"We lightly post-train Qwen2.5-Coder-7B-Instruct to achieve 42.4% Pass@1 on SWE-bench Verified, a +25.4% improvement over the prior SLM state of the art, while using expert assistance sparsely (~4 calls per task and 11% of total tokens)."

Rater Population

strong

Domain Experts

Helpful for staffing comparability.

"We introduce SWE-Protégé, a post-training framework that reframes software repair as an expert-protégé collaboration problem."

Human Feedback Details

  • Uses human feedback: No
  • Feedback types: None
  • Rater population: Domain Experts
  • Expertise required: Coding

Evaluation Details

  • Evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics
  • Agentic eval: Long Horizon
  • Quality controls: Not reported
  • Evidence quality: Moderate
  • Use this page as: Background context only

Protocol And Measurement Signals

Benchmarks / Datasets

SWE-benchSWE-bench Verified

Reported Metrics

pass@1

Research Brief

Metadata summary

Small language models (SLMs) offer compelling advantages in cost, latency, and adaptability, but have so far lagged behind larger models on long-horizon software engineering tasks such as SWE-bench, where they suffer from pervasive action looping and low resolution rates.

Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.

Key Takeaways

  • Small language models (SLMs) offer compelling advantages in cost, latency, and adaptability, but have so far lagged behind larger models on long-horizon software engineering tasks such as SWE-bench, where they suffer from pervasive action looping and low resolution rates.
  • We introduce SWE-Protégé, a post-training framework that reframes software repair as an expert-protégé collaboration problem.
  • In SWE-Protégé, an SLM remains the sole decision-maker while learning to selectively seek guidance from a strong expert model, recognize stalled states, and follow through on expert feedback.

Researcher Actions

  • Compare this paper against others mentioning SWE-bench.
  • Validate inferred eval signals (Long-horizon tasks) against the full paper.
  • Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

  • Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
  • Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

Research Summary

Contribution Summary

  • We introduce SWE-Protégé, a post-training framework that reframes software repair as an expert-protégé collaboration problem.
  • Our approach combines supervised fine-tuning on expert-augmented trajectories with agentic reinforcement learning that explicitly discourages degenerative looping and unproductive expert collaboration.
  • We lightly post-train Qwen2.5-Coder-7B-Instruct to achieve 42.4% Pass@1 on SWE-bench Verified, a +25.4% improvement over the prior SLM state of the art, while using expert assistance sparsely (~4 calls per task and 11% of total tokens).

Why It Matters For Eval

  • Our approach combines supervised fine-tuning on expert-augmented trajectories with agentic reinforcement learning that explicitly discourages degenerative looping and unproductive expert collaboration.

Researcher Checklist

  • Gap: Human feedback protocol is explicit

    No explicit human feedback protocol detected.

  • Pass: Evaluation mode is explicit

    Detected: Automatic Metrics

  • Gap: Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Pass: Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    Detected: SWE-bench, SWE-bench Verified

  • Pass: Metric reporting is present

    Detected: pass@1

Related Papers

Papers are ranked by protocol overlap, extraction signal alignment, and semantic proximity.