# Are Performance-Optimization Benchmarks Reliably Measuring Coding Agents?

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.01211 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.01211/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Software engineering coding agents, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use.
- Builds on 48 of its 58 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 1 Jul 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM agents and tool use / [Software engineering coding agents](https://mlsanity.com/agents/software-engineering-coding-agents/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 48)

- [ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.03629/) (2022)
- [Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Code](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2107.03374/) (2021)
- [Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.11366/) (2023)
- [Toolformer: Language Models Can Teach Themselves to Use Tools](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.04761/) (2023)
- [Program Synthesis with Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2108.07732/) (2021)
- [SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.06770/) (2023)
- [Tree of Thoughts: Deliberate Problem Solving with Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.10601/) (2023)
- [Code Llama: Open Foundation Models for Code](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.12950/) (2023)
- [AutoGen: Enabling Next-Gen LLM Applications via Multi-Agent Conversation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.08155/) (2023)
- [SWE-agent: Agent-Computer Interfaces Enable Automated Software Engineering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.15793/) (2024)
- [Competition-Level Code Generation with AlphaCode](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.07814/) (2022)
- [OpenHands: An Open Platform for AI Software Developers as Generalist Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.16741/) (2024)
- [CodeGen: An Open Large Language Model for Code with Multi-Turn Program Synthesis](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.13474/) (2022)
- [Large Language Models for Software Engineering: A Systematic Literature Review](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.10620/) (2023)
- [AutoCodeRover: Autonomous Program Improvement](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.05427/) (2024)
- [KernelBench: Can LLMs Write Efficient GPU Kernels?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.10517/) (2025)
- [Large Language Models for Software Engineering: Survey and Open Problems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.03533/) (2023)
- [Large Language Model-Based Agents for Software Engineering: A Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.02977/) (2024)
- [Learning Performance-Improving Code Edits](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.07867/) (2023)
- [Evaluating Language Models for Efficient Code Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.06450/) (2024)
- [EffiBench: Benchmarking the Efficiency of Automatically Generated Code](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.02037/) (2024)
- [Agents in Software Engineering: Survey, Landscape, and Vision](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.09030/) (2024)
- [A Survey on Large Language Models for Software Engineering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.15223/) (2023)
- [How Efficient is LLM-Generated Code? A Rigorous & High-Standard Benchmark](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.06647/) (2024)
- [SWE-Perf: Can Language Models Optimize Code Performance on Real-World Repositories?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.12415/) (2025)
- [Mercury: A Code Efficiency Benchmark for Code Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.07844/) (2024)
- [ECCO: Can We Improve Model-Generated Code Efficiency Without Sacrificing Functional Correctness?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.14044/) (2024)
- [EffiBench-X: A Multi-Language Benchmark for Measuring Efficiency of LLM-Generated Code](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.13004/) (2025)
- [AlgoTune: Can Language Models Speed Up General-Purpose Numerical Programs?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.15887/) (2025)
- [Mutation-Guided LLM-based Test Generation at Meta](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.12862/) (2025)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [EarlyEval: Cheaper Agent Evaluation via Early Outcome Prediction](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.02783/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

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.