SWE-IF: Aligning Code Evaluation with Human Preference
Ming Zhong, Xiang Zhou, Ting-Yun Chang, Qingze Wang, Nan Xu, Xiance Si, Dan Garrette, Shyam Upadhyay, Jeremiah Zhe Liu, Jiawei Han, Benoit Schillings, Jiao Sun
Abstract
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.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Builds on11
- Is Your Code Generated by ChatGPT Really Correct? Rigorous Evaluation of Large Language Models for Code GenerationJiawei Liu, Chunqiu Steven Xia, Yuyao Wang, Lingming ZhangNeurIPS 2023 · 2,317 citations
- SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-world Github Issues?Carlos E. Jimenez, John Yang, Alexander Wettig, Shunyu Yao et al.ICLR 2024 · 2,082 citations
- Chatbot Arena: An Open Platform for Evaluating LLMs by Human PreferenceWei-Lin Chiang, Lianmin Zheng, Ying Sheng, Anastasios Nikolas Angelopoulos et al.ICML 2024 · 1,212 citations
- DS-1000: A Natural and Reliable Benchmark for Data Science Code GenerationYuhang Lai, Chengxi Li, Yiming Wang, Tianyi Zhang et al.ICML 2023 · 504 citations
- SWT-Bench: Testing and Validating Real-World Bug-Fixes with Code AgentsNiels Mündler, Mark Niklas Müller, Jingxuan He, Martin T. VechevNeurIPS 2024 · 172 citations
Related papers
- Is Vibe Coding Safe? Benchmarking Vulnerability of Agent-Generated Code in Real-World TasksSongwen Zhao, Danqing Wang, Kexun Zhang, Jiaxuan Luo et al.ICML 2026 · 22 citations
- Building Software by Rolling the Dice: A Qualitative Study of Vibe CodingYi-Hung Chou, Boyuan Jiang, Yi Wen Chen, Mingyue Weng et al.FSE 2026 · 1 citation
- VibeCheck: Discover and Quantify Qualitative Differences in Large Language ModelsLisa Dunlap, Krishna Mandal, Trevor Darrell, Jacob Steinhardt et al.ICLR 2025
- VerIF: Verification Engineering for Reinforcement Learning in Instruction FollowingHao Peng, Yunjia Qi, Xiaozhi Wang, Bin Xu et al.EMNLP 2025 · 24 citations
- Training Language Models to Generate Quality Code with Program Analysis FeedbackFeng Yao, Zilong Wang, Liyuan Liu, Junxia Cui et al.NeurIPS 2025 · 11 citations
