Paper detail

SWE-Factory: Your Automated Factory for Issue Resolution Training Data and Evaluation Benchmarks

Constructing large-scale datasets for the GitHub issue resolution task is crucial for both training and evaluating the software engineering capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs). However, the existing GitHub issue resolution data construction pipeline is challenging and labor-intensive. We identify three key limitations in existing pipelines: (1) test patches collected often omit binary file changes; (2) the manual construction of evaluation environments is labor-intensive; and (3) the fail2pass validation phase requires manual inspection of test logs and writing custom parsing code to extract test status from logs. In this paper, we propose SWE-Factory, a fully automated issue resolution data construction pipeline, to resolve these limitations. First, our pipeline automatically recovers missing binary test files and ensures the correctness of test patches. Second, we introduce SWE-Builder, a LLM-based multi-agent system that automates evaluation environment construction. Third, we introduce a standardized, exit-code-based log parsing method to automatically extract test status, enabling a fully automated fail2pass validation. Experiments on 671 real-world GitHub issues across four programming languages show that our method can effectively construct valid evaluation environments for GitHub issues at a reasonable cost. For example, with GPT-4.1 mini, our SWE-Builder constructs 337 valid task instances out of 671 issues, at $0.047 per instance. Our ablation study further shows the effectiveness of different components of SWE-Builder. We also demonstrate through manual inspection that our exit-code-based fail2pass validation method is highly accurate, achieving an F1 score of 0.99. Additionally, we conduct an exploratory experiment to investigate whether we can use SWE-Factory to enhance models' software engineering ability.

preprint2026arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.