# SWE-IF: Aligning Code Evaluation with Human Preference

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.07315 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.07315/

## Key facts

- Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Process reward models for reasoning, one of 10 directions in LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation.
- Builds on 20 of its 49 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 8 Oct 2025.

## Placed in

- LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation / [Process reward models for reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/alignment/process-reward-models-for-reasoning/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 20 of 20)

- [Qwen3 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.09388/) (2025)
- [Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Code](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2107.03374/) (2021)
- [DeepSeek-R1: Incentivizing Reasoning Capability in LLMs via Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.12948/) (2025)
- [GPT-4o System Card](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.21276/) (2024)
- [Gemini 2.5: Pushing the Frontier with Advanced Reasoning, Multimodality, Long Context, and Next Generation Agentic Capabilities](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.06261/) (2025)
- [Program Synthesis with Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2108.07732/) (2021)
- [Gemma 3 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.19786/) (2025)
- [Instruction-Following Evaluation for Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.07911/) (2023)
- [Qwen2.5-Coder Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.12186/) (2024)
- [DeepSeek-V3 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.19437/) (2024)
- [Kimi K2: Open Agentic Intelligence](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.20534/) (2025)
- [The Impact of AI on Developer Productivity: Evidence from GitHub Copilot](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.06590/) (2023)
- [MiniMax-M1: Scaling Test-Time Compute Efficiently with Lightning Attention](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.13585/) (2025)
- [Generalizing Verifiable Instruction Following](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.02833/) (2025)
- [Multi-SWE-bench: A Multilingual Benchmark for Issue Resolving](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.02605/) (2025)
- [ClassEval: A Manually-Crafted Benchmark for Evaluating LLMs on Class-level Code Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.01861/) (2023)
- [SWE-bench Goes Live!](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.23419/) (2025)
- [LiveCodeBench Pro: How Do Olympiad Medalists Judge LLMs in Competitive Programming?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.11928/) (2025)
- [Agent-RLVR: Training Software Engineering Agents via Guidance and Environment Rewards](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.11425/) (2025)
- [NoFunEval: Funny How Code LMs Falter on Requirements Beyond Functional Correctness](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.15963/) (2024)

## Built on by (most cited first, 2 of 2)

- [SWE-NFI: Studying and Benchmarking Coding Agents for Non-Functional Improvements](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.27409/) (2026)
- [PreciseCoder: Faithful and Generalizable Debugging Beyond Unit-Test Rewards](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.18755/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Large Language Models (LLMs) have catalyzed vibe coding, where users leverage LLMs to generate and iteratively refine code through natural language interactions until it passes their vibe check. Vibe check reflects human preference and goes beyond functionality: the solution should feel right, read cleanly, preserve intent, and remain correct. However, current code evaluation remains anchored to pass@k and captures only functional correctness, overlooking non-functional instructions that users routinely apply. In this paper, we hypothesize that instruction following is the missing piece underlying vibe check besides functional correctness. To quantify models' code instruction-following capabilities with measurable signals, we present VeriCode, a taxonomy of 30 verifiable code instructions together with deterministic verifiers. We use the taxonomy to augment established evaluation suites, resulting in SWE-IF, a testbed to assess both instruction following and functional correctness. Evaluating 31 LLMs, we show that even the strongest models struggle to comply with multiple instructions and exhibit functional regression. Most importantly, a composite score of functional correctness and instruction following correlates best with human preference, with instruction following emerging as the primary differentiator among LLMs. Our code, data, and taxonomy are available at https://github.com/maszhongming/SWE-IF.