Hacker News
points by Systemerror7A69 10 hours ago | 0 comments
Academically a - very - interesting article, which confirms my ongoing suspicion of LLM Benchmarks in general ( probably why I like it so much). Another thing that caught my eye is DeepSWE having a bunch of bugs in them. The more I learn about these benchmarks the more sceptical I become. I would expect such a prolific benchmark to have these bugs ironed out by now.

The practical takeaway, however, seems to be an interesting "don't use max mode". The passage about deepseeks weird API behavior dropping to pretty much zero the moment you used high says a lot.

Also, personally, even though Opus is clearly so much ahead of the Open Source models after the changes, I think the adjusted score is still very much competitive. I see other commenters using this as proof to justify why their opinions of the open source models - but a drop from 74% to ~50% is, while a big drop, still about a ~50% pass rate afterwards. That's far from useless for coding, especially since DeepSWE seems to be such a difficult benchmark. It simply seems to more accurately reflect the capabilities of these models.

All in all, I'd love to see more of such articles, and will probably keep an eye on this one - if they continue "benchmarking" these models this way.

[–] i2talics 9 hours ago
Who has incentive to improve the quality of the benchmarks?
[–] rat9988 9 hours ago
AI Labs actually. They would love the perfect benchmar representing real usecase. I'd even dare and guess that they don't share much publically because it is a huge competitive advantage.
[–] adastra22 2 hours ago
> they would love the perfect benchmar

That right there is the problem.

[–] adastra22 2 hours ago
The people who have no power over the situation: users.
[–] Bolwin 9 hours ago
The benchmark makers and anyone who relies on benchmarks
[–] joshonyc 6 hours ago
Very much disagree, to me it clearly shows the gap between Open Source and the frontier. You can not do real code work with open source models right now.

Especially since this benchmark is still mostly DeepSWE, and the only reason the open source models are doing decent is because much of the information hasn't changed. The open source models have been benchmaxxed to death.

[–] onlyrealcuzzo 8 hours ago
This DEFINITELY squares with my anecdata that Gemini 3.8 Flash is not even remotely close to Opus 5.5 on the types of problems DeepSWE CLAIMS to be benchmarking.

Astra does seem close.

I'd be curious to see Argon on there, since my experience is that Argon is also significantly behind Opus 5.5 and Astra despite the benchmarks (obviously much closer than Flash, though).

I've been meaning to take a closer look at what's behind the curtain of DeepSWE - since I built what I thought should be the easiest possible coding benchmark - and the models I tested it on scored roughly the same as they do on DeepSWE... Which is supposed to be hard...

Something seems amiss.