Are Performance-Optimization Benchmarks Reliably Measuring Coding Agents?
Repository-level performance-optimization benchmarks such as GSO, SWE-Perf and SWE-fficiency evaluate coding agents by applying patches to real repositories and comparing runtime against unoptimized baselines and official reference patches. Their leaderboard scores are increasingly used as evidence of coding-agent progress, but those scores can conflate runtime instability, benchmark-specific scoring rules, and how many tasks are already solved by at least one public submission. We audit these issues across the three benchmarks. First, we replay the official reference patches for 740 code optimization tasks across four common types of Google Cloud machines. Most benchmark tasks can be replayed, but their reference patches satisfy the original benchmark validity rules in every cross-machine replay for only 39/102 GSO tasks, 11/140 SWE-Perf tasks, and 411/498 SWE-fficiency tasks; SWE-Perf is especially fragile because many reference patches produce close-to-zero runtime changes. Second, we show that public submission rankings depend strongly on the benchmark scoring rule. Among eight public submissions shared by GSO and SWE-fficiency, the official rankings disagree on 9 of 28 pairwise submission comparisons, and SWE-fficiency's leaderboard scoring rule assigns the worst ten tasks overly high score weights of 58.5%-82.8%. Third, looking across 10 public submissions for each task, we find that at least one submission matches or beats the reference patch on 85.3% (384/450) of replay-valid GSO and SWE-fficiency tasks, and beats the unoptimized base code on 99.8% (449/450). Our study complements leaderboard scores by identifying tasks with more reliable performance signals, quantifying per-task score contributions, and exposing the remaining performance gaps that are hidden by aggregate rankings.
Code (0)
등록된 구현이 없습니다.
Similar Papers 제목 키워드 기반
Measuring what Matters: Construct Validity in Large Language Model Benchmarks
Evaluating large language models (LLMs) is crucial for both assessing their capabilities and identifying safety or robustness issues prior to deployment. Reliably measuring abstract and complex phenomena such as 'safety'…
Measuring What Matters: Benchmarking Generative, Multimodal, and Agentic AI in Healthcare
AI models are increasingly deployed in live clinical environments where they must perform reliably across complex, high-stakes workflows that standard training and validation datasets were never designed to capture. Eval…
Knowledge without Wisdom: Measuring Misalignment between LLMs and Intended Impact
LLMs increasingly excel on AI benchmarks, but doing so does not guarantee validity for downstream tasks. This study contrasts LLM alignment on benchmarks, downstream tasks, and, importantly the intended impact of those t…
Do Bias Benchmarks Generalise? Evidence from Voice-based Evaluation of Gender Bias in SpeechLLMs
Recent work in benchmarking bias and fairness in speech large language models (SpeechLLMs) has relied heavily on multiple-choice question answering (MCQA) formats. The model is tasked to choose between stereotypical, ant…
Question AnsweringEdit, But Verify: An Empirical Audit of Instructed Code-Editing Benchmarks
Instructed code editing, where an LLM modifies existing code based on a natural language instruction, accounts for roughly 19% of real-world coding assistant interactions. Yet very few benchmarks directly evaluate this c…