DeepSeek-R1 and Claude Performance on SWE-Bench Verified With and Without File Context
Abstract
Abstract: This report synthesises findings from 3 peer-reviewed papers addressing the following research question: What is the performance difference between DeepSeek-R1 and Claude models on SWE-bench Verified when evaluated with and without access to issue-specific file context. Code repair is a fundamental task in software development, facilitating efficient bug resolution and software maintenance. Although large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated considerable potential in automated code repair, their ability to comprehend and leverage diverse. 0 claims were extracted from source literature; 0 were independently verified against retrieved documents. An automated multi-reviewer quality assessment produced a score of 4.0/10. This report is a machine-generated literature synthesis and does not constitute original research.
Research Question
What is the performance difference between DeepSeek-R1 and Claude models on SWE-bench Verified when evaluated with and without access to issue-specific file context?
Verification Level
| Paper level | L1, Literature synthesis | |
| Source-grounded claims | 0 | |
| Claim record source | not publicly specified |
Descriptive public verification status only; aggregate claim counts are public, but individual claim records are not exposed here.
Truth-Engine Gate Verdict
| Status | Unverified | |
| Gate | Gate 2 — Verification (formal proof or sandbox reproduction) | |
| Reason | Published before the Gate 2 verification pipeline was activated (2026-06-10). No formal proof or sandbox reproduction has been attempted for this record. | |
| Evaluated | 2026-06-10T06:30:49+00:00 |
This record has not completed Gate 2 of the verification pipeline (a type-checked Lean4 proof for mathematical claims, or a sealed-sandbox reproduction for empirical claims). It is a literature synthesis only. VERIFIED requires an attached reproducible artifact (Lean4 proof source, or repro script and results) before this status can be set; it is not derived from review score or claim count.
Quality Tier
| Tier | Quarantine candidate | |
| Basis | Review score is below 5.0; source-level inspection is required before relying on the synthesis. |
Descriptive public triage only; this tier does not alter current publication or DOI behavior.
Quality Dimensions
| Evidence strength | LOW | |
| Uncertainty disclosure | MEDIUM | |
| Reproducibility status | MEDIUM |
Automated triage signals derived from public fields; not human peer review or independent validation.
Correction Record
| Status | CURRENT |
| Correction count | 0 |
| Manifest contract | paper-manifest-v1.1 |
| Correction contract | correction-record-v1 |
Public corrections are additive records. Current status does not claim the synthesis is error-free.
Provenance
| Publisher | Assignee Research |
| Public provenance | L2, Public artifact record |
| Report artifact | Available |
| External record | Not registered |
| Claim lineage | 0 aggregate source-grounded claims |
| Review method | Automated multi-reviewer assessment |
| Quality guide | How to read scores, claims, manifests, and evidence links |
| Provenance contract | source-provenance-v1 |
| Note | Machine-generated synthesis of existing literature. Not primary research. |