pith. sign in

arxiv: 2503.07701 · v1 · pith:PYUNJCDQnew · submitted 2025-03-10 · 💻 cs.SE · cs.AI

Automated Benchmark Generation for Repository-Level Coding Tasks

classification 💻 cs.SE cs.AI
keywords swe-benchagentbenchmarkcodeperformancerepositoriesaccurateautomated
0
0 comments X
read the original abstract

Code Agent development is an extremely active research area, where a reliable performance metric is critical for tracking progress and guiding new developments. This demand is underscored by the meteoric rise in popularity of SWE-Bench. This benchmark challenges code agents to generate patches addressing GitHub issues given the full repository as context. The correctness of generated patches is then evaluated by executing a human-written test suite extracted from the repository after the issue's resolution. However, constructing benchmarks like SWE-Bench requires substantial manual effort to set up historically accurate execution environments for testing. Crucially, this severely limits the number of considered repositories, e.g., just 12 for SWE-Bench. Considering so few repositories, selected for their popularity runs the risk of leading to a distributional mismatch, i.e., the measured performance may not be representative of real-world scenarios potentially misguiding development efforts. In this work, we address this challenge and introduce SetUpAgent, a fully automated system capable of historically accurate dependency setup, test execution, and result parsing. Using SetUpAgent, we generate two new datasets: (i) SWEE-Bench an extended version of SWE-Bench encompassing hundreds of repositories, and (ii) SWA-Bench a benchmark focusing on applications rather than libraries. Comparing these datasets to SWE-Bench with respect to their characteristics and code agent performance, we find significant distributional differences, including lower issue description quality and detail level, higher fix complexity, and most importantly up to 40% lower agent success rates.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Evaluating LLM Agents on Automated Software Analysis Tasks

    cs.SE 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    A custom LLM agent achieves 94% manually verified success on a new benchmark of 35 software analysis setups, outperforming baselines at 77%, but struggles with stage mixing, error localization, and overestimating its ...

  2. Coding Agents Don't Know When to Act

    cs.SE 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Coding agents exhibit action bias by proposing undesirable changes on already-fixed issues 35-65% of the time, and explicit reproduction instructions only partially mitigate this while creating new abstention errors.