aiqbench analysis
This study introduces SWE-bench Science, a rigorous benchmark evaluating coding agents on repairing scientific software across 20 domains. Results reveal that even top models struggle with complex engineering tasks in science, failing to generalize knowledge and often being hindered by poorly aligned scientific guidance rather than helped by it. The work provides critical insights into the specific failure mechanisms of AI agents when operating within specialized scientific contexts.
SWE-bench Science: Can Coding Agents Resolve Engineering Tasks in Science?
arXiv:2608.19799v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Software increasingly functions as part of the scientific instrument itself, making failures in scientific code capable of compromising not only program behavior but also the evidence underlying scientific conclusions. Yet existing evaluations of coding agents largely emphasize aggregate task success, providing limited insight into why agents fail when repairing scientific software. We introduce \textbf{SWE-bench Science}, a repository-level benchmark for scientific software engineering comprising 119 tasks from 98 GitHub repositories across 20 scientific domains. Each task is organized into one of three paradigms: Issue-driven, Expert-exploratory, and Engineering-integration. Even the best-performing agent, \textbf{Claude Code with Opus-5 (max), achieves a pass@1 below 50\%}, highlighting the substantial challenges posed by scientific software engineering. We identify four recurring failure mechanisms: deficits in scientific knowledge or abstraction, misguided exploration or surface-level repair, incomplete repair coverage or system integration, and failures to generalize scientific knowledge beyond observed cases in our analysis. We further conduct a paired ablation that removes explicit scientific guidance while preserving the repository and executable engineering context. The results show that scientific knowledge is not uniformly beneficial: well-grounded information can constrain repair and improve average performance and token efficiency, whereas poorly aligned guidance can induce anchoring and does not necessarily improve exact repair success. Together, SWE-bench Science provides a broad testbed for studying both the capabilities and failure mechanisms of coding agents in scientific software engineering.
Title:SWE-bench Science: Can Coding Agents Resolve Engineering Tasks in Science?
Abstract:Software increasingly functions as part of the scientific instrument itself, making failures in scientific code capable of compromising not only program behavior but also the evidence underlying scientific conclusions. Yet existing evaluations of coding agents largely emphasize aggregate task success, providing limited insight into why agents fail when repairing scientific software. We introduce \textbf{SWE-bench Science}, a repository-level benchmark for scientific software engineering comprising 119 tasks from 98 GitHub repositories across 20 scientific domains. Each task is organized into one of three paradigms: Issue-driven, Expert-exploratory, and Engineering-integration. Even the best-performing agent, \textbf{Claude Code with Opus-5 (max), achieves a pass@1 below 50\%}, highlighting the substantial challenges posed by scientific software engineering. We identify four recurring failure mechanisms: deficits in scientific knowledge or abstraction, misguided exploration or surface-level repair, incomplete repair coverage or system integration, and failures to generalize scientific knowledge beyond observed cases in our analysis. We further conduct a paired ablation that removes explicit scientific guidance while preserving the repository and executable engineering context. The results show that scientific knowledge is not uniformly beneficial: well-grounded information can constrain repair and improve average performance and token efficiency, whereas poorly aligned guidance can induce anchoring and does not necessarily improve exact repair success. Together, SWE-bench Science provides a broad testbed for studying both the capabilities and failure mechanisms of coding agents in scientific software engineering.
Computation and Language (cs.CL); Software Engineering (cs.SE)
arXiv:2608.19799 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2608.19799v1 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.19799 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 330 words
Related coverage
[AINews] Reflection Beam - 501B-A23B American Open Model
Latent Space · Oct 6, 2026
[AINews] High Taste Testers Ep. 1
Latent Space · Oct 17, 2026

Granite 4.2 LLMs: How They're Built
Hugging Face · Aug 25, 2026

Benchtalks #2: The future of coding benchmarks
Snorkel AI Blog · Jun 3, 2026