The DOI matches its DataCite record; the references it cites are not checked yet.
ATime-Consistent Benchmark for Repository-Level Software Engineering Evaluation
Abstract
Evaluation of repository-aware software engineering systems is often confounded by synthetic task design, prompt leakage, and temporal contamination between repository knowledge and future code changes. We present a time-consistent benchmark methodology that snapshots a repository at time T0, constructs repository-derived code knowledge using only artifacts available before T0, and evaluates on engineering tasks derived from pull requests merged in the future interval (T0, T1]. Each historical pull request is transformed into a natural-language task through an LLM-assisted prompt-generation pipeline, and the benchmark is formalized as a matched A/B comparison in which the same software engineering agent is evaluated with and without repository-derived code knowledge while all other variables are held constant. We also report a baseline characterization study on two open-source repositories, DragonFly and React, using three Claude-family models and four prompt granularities. Across both repositories, file-level F1 increases monotonically from minimal to guided prompts, reaching 0.8081 on DragonFly and 0.8078 on React for the strongest tested model. These results show that prompt construction is a first-order benchmark variable. More broadly, the benchmark highlights that temporal consistency and prompt control are core validity requirements for repository-aware software engineering evaluation.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Metadata
- Authors
- Xianpeng, Sun, Sun, H., Yu, T., Ma, S., Zhang, Q., Rao, L., & Tian, C.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2026
- arXiv
- 2603.26137
- Type
- Preprint
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: ATime-Consistent Benchmark for Repository-Level Software Engineering Evaluation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.48550/arxiv.2603.26137
- The paper
- Xianpeng, Sun, Sun, H., Yu, T., Ma, S., Zhang, Q., Rao, L., & Tian, C. (2026). ATime-Consistent Benchmark for Repository-Level Software Engineering Evaluation. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2603.26137
