My impression was entirely the opposite; the unsolved subset of SWE-bench verified problems are memorizable (solutions are pulled from public GitHub repos) and the evaluators are often so brittle or disconnected from the problem statement that the only way to pass is to regurgitate a memorized solution.

OpenAI had a whole post about this, where they recommended switching to SWE-bench Pro as a better (but still imperfect) benchmark:

https://openai.com/index/why-we-no-longer-evaluate-swe-bench...

> We audited a 27.6% subset of the dataset that models often failed to solve and found that at least 59.4% of the audited problems have flawed test cases that reject functionally correct submissions

> SWE-bench problems are sourced from open-source repositories many model providers use for training purposes. In our analysis we found that all frontier models we tested were able to reproduce the original, human-written bug fix

> improvements on SWE-bench Verified no longer reflect meaningful improvements in models’ real-world software development abilities. Instead, they increasingly reflect how much the model was exposed to the benchmark at training time

> We’re building new, uncontaminated evaluations to better track coding capabilities, and we think this is an important area to focus on for the wider research community. Until we have those, OpenAI recommends reporting results for SWE-bench Pro.

I stand corrected.