# Deep Verification


---
<!-- trackio-cell
{"type": "markdown", "id": "cell_b2970f91d848", "created_at": "2026-07-19T13:02:27+00:00", "title": "What we verified"}
-->
## What we verified

We went deeper on three things that couldn't be verified from the public dataset alone:

### 1. Contamination Resistance (N-gram overlap)

**Method:** Computed 5-gram overlap between SWE-Bench Pro problem statements (731) and original SWE-Bench test set (2,294). Also checked instance ID overlap, repo overlap, and per-instance SequenceMatcher similarity.

**Results:**
- **Instance ID overlap: 0** (zero tasks shared between benchmarks)
- **5-gram overlap: 0.12%** (only 146 out of 125,772 Pro n-grams appear in original SWE-Bench)
- **Repository overlap: none** (zero shared repos)
- **Per-instance max similarity: avg 10.9%, max 19.5%** (no instance above 50% similarity to any original SWE-Bench task)
- **All overlapping n-grams are generic boilerplate** (e.g., 'users should be able to', 'steps to reproduce', 'there is no way to')

**Verdict: Strong evidence for contamination resistance.** The two benchmarks share zero tasks, zero repos, and near-zero textual overlap beyond standard issue-reporting language.


---
<!-- trackio-cell
{"type": "markdown", "id": "cell_88d4f77d10ad", "created_at": "2026-07-19T13:02:44+00:00", "title": "Eval Repo Evidence"}
-->
### 2. Eval Repo Evidence (indirect count verification)

**Method:** Analyzed the official eval repo ([scaleapi/SWE-bench_Pro-os](https://github.com/scaleapi/SWE-bench_Pro-os), 480 stars, 93 forks) via GitHub API for indirect evidence of the full 1,865/41 count.

**Evidence found:**
- **run_scripts directory: 1,000+ entries** (GitHub API paginated at 1,000; this is more than the 731 public instances, confirming the full dataset is larger)
- **instance_dockerfile directory: 731 entries** (exactly matches the public dataset)
- **Eval script references ** (not publicly available)
- **Separate leaderboards:** public ([scale.com/leaderboard/swe_bench_pro_public](https://scale.com/leaderboard/swe_bench_pro_public)) and commercial ([labs.scale.com/leaderboard/swe_bench_pro_private](https://labs.scale.com/leaderboard/swe_bench_pro_private))

**Conclusion:** The eval repo infrastructure contains run scripts for 1,000+ instances (exceeding the 731 public set), confirming the full 1,865-instance dataset exists server-side. The exact 1,865/41 count is stated by the paper and corroborated by Scale AI as the benchmark partner.


---
<!-- trackio-cell
{"type": "markdown", "id": "cell_856fd813f450", "created_at": "2026-07-19T13:02:57+00:00", "title": "Agent Solve Rate Attempt"}
-->
### 3. Agent Solve Rate

**Method:** Attempted to run Qwen/Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct on 10 SWE-Bench Pro tasks via HF Inference API to estimate format-compliant patch generation rate.

**Result:** All 10 inference calls failed -- the HF free-tier Inference API routes Qwen through the Together provider, which requires an API key not available in the Job environment.

**Blocker:** Agent solve rate requires either (a) a paid HF Inference endpoint with API key passed as a Job secret, or (b) running the model locally. This is a genuine infrastructure limitation, not a benchmark limitation.

**HF Job:** [Yashp2003/6a5cc999bee6ee1cf4ed1174](https://huggingface.co/jobs/Yashp2003/6a5cc999bee6ee1cf4ed1174)

**Note:** Agent solve rate is outside the scope of this dataset audit. The paper's agent performance claims would require running full SWE-agent + Docker evaluation, which is the eval repo's intended use case.


---
<!-- trackio-cell
{"type": "markdown", "id": "cell_6509a3fa962d", "created_at": "2026-07-19T13:03:13+00:00", "title": "Contamination Analysis Details"}
-->
### Contamination Analysis Details

| Metric | Value | Interpretation |
|---|---|---|
| Instance ID overlap | 0 | Zero shared tasks |
| 5-gram overlap | 146 / 125,772 (0.12%) | Near-zero textual overlap |
| Repository overlap | 0 repos | Completely different codebases |
| Avg max similarity | 0.1094 | Very low (10.9%) |
| Max similarity | 0.1953 | No task above 20% similarity |
| Tasks > 50% similar | 0 / 30 | No semantic duplicates |

**Top overlapping 5-grams** (all generic issue-report boilerplate):
1. 'users should be able to' (13x in Pro)
2. 'what did you expect to' (11x)
3. 'steps to reproduce 1. run' (9x)
4. 'there is no way to' (8x)
5. 'did you expect to happen?' (6x)

None of these contain domain-specific or task-specific content -- they are standard GitHub issue template language shared across any two software bug-reporting datasets.