They do disclose that they scored much lower than Fable on SWEBench Pro, which is a pretty high-quality benchmark. I think it's partially just about what they choose to emphasize...
replyIt's worth noting that OpenAI recently came out saying, "We don't think SWEBench Pro is worth reporting any more" - https://openai.com/index/separating-signal-from-noise-coding...
reply[flagged]
replyPeople will downvote you because this comment is "not appropriate" for HN, but there were countless conversations on HN about how important these benchmarks are.
replyI am literally LOLing at HN right now
You're free to lol but at least put a substantive comment with it.
reply'Lol' by itself is low quality.
It's almost like there are multiple different people commenting on HN.
replySWEBench Pro should be ignored until they fix it or disprove the broken task accusations.
replyThere has been a lot of chatter ever since the Mythos scores had been release that SWEbench pro had major contamination and that Mythos had memorized many questions that lacked the context to be solvable on their own. And now with OpenAI saying a large number of the questions are broken, I think it's worth taking that single outlier benchmark with some salt when the overall trend is that 5.6 is very competitive with Mythos at about half the price.
replyI totally missed that, because in the charts they showcase for coding, the SWEBench score is not present, they only include it at the end of the post in tables. Hmm.
replyGreat catch.
The SWEBench benchmarks are really gamed at this point and should not be trusted period. The solutions are effectively in the training sets and have been for a while.
replySWE Bench Pro is completely different benchmark than SWE Bench (e.g. Verified) suite was. It only copied the name.
replySWE Bench Pro is also gamed and shouldn't be trusted.
replyThen we are left with what? FrontierCode maybe? IIRC that one evaluates not only if tests pass but also code quality - e.g. whether the maintainer would accept the pull request as is.
replyWhy that benchmark in particular?
replyDidn't they also just post about how SWEBench is broken?
reply> SWEBench Pro, which is a pretty high-quality benchmark
replyNo, doesn't seem like it
https://openai.com/index/separating-signal-from-noise-coding...
deleted
replyThe proof is in the pudding and these benchmark stats will only work for so long before people lose interest.
replyThe charts are also extremely difficult to parse. They seem auto-generated. Dataset coloring is atrocious.
replyRegarding your main point, yes, I agree. My impression (as someone who uses both Codex and Claude Code daily) is that OpenAI does a fair amount of benchmaxxing.