The study investigates how multi‑harness reinforcement learning (RL) affects coding agents by comparing two grouping strategies—Within (one group per task‑harness pair) and Cross (harnesses pooled within a task)—using a Qwen3‑8B policy trained on frozen task‑harness records from Aider, OpenHands, Qwen Code, and SWE‑agent. Across 24,000 sealed evaluations, the choice of evaluation harness dramatically increases solve rates (from 2.14 % to 9.27 %), while the grouping rule has a negligible effect. Both grouping rules yield similar gains on the same source harness, and Cross‑harness credit does not improve portability beyond Within‑harness credit, suggesting that multi‑harness RL reports should specify grouping boundaries and test on unseen harnesses.
By Chenqian Le, Jiayi Cheng, Qijia He, Runhao Li, Yinghao Li, Xupeng Chen
arXiv:2607. 07946v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: DeepSWE is a benchmark of 113 original, long-horizon software engineering tasks for evaluating coding agents.
By Wenqi Huang, Charley Lee, Leonard Tng, Serena Ge
The paper introduces T1, a 122‑billion‑parameter Mixture‑of‑Experts model trained with reinforcement learning to perform long‑horizon terminal tasks such as coding and scientific discovery. T1 operates a real shell in a cloud sandbox, making over 300 tool‑call turns per task and receiving rewards from task‑specific verifiers. The authors detail a training recipe that includes aggressive warm‑starting, TITO construction with drift repair, and rollout‑routing replay, achieving significant performance gains on Terminal‑Bench 2.1 and surpassing GPT‑5.4 and GLM‑5.1 on the Long‑Horizon Terminal Bench.
By Junyao Yang, Yucheng Shi, Zhongzhi Li, Ruhan Wang, Zongxia Li, Haitao Mi, Leowei Liang
Mid‑Harness proposes a test‑time compute strategy that samples and verifies candidate actions before execution, keeping the underlying generator and harness unchanged. Experiments show that with a strong verifier, sampling more actions significantly boosts success rates—e.g., a GPT‑5.6 verifier raises Pass@1 from 50.00 % to 68.03 % on TerminalBench‑Lite using eight samples. The approach also improves performance across various models, benchmarks, and harnesses, demonstrating that action scaling is a promising target for enhancing terminal agent reliability.
By Minki Kang, Ryo Hachiuma, Shaokun Zhang, Subhashree Radhakrishnan, Yonggan Fu, Jindong Jiang, Mingjie Liu, Ehsan Hosseini-Asl, Yi Dong, Yu-Chiang Frank Wang, Byung-Kwan Lee
arXiv:2607. 22585v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Public leaderboards for coding agents typically rank systems by model name and pass rate, while the surrounding harness (the scaffold that issues tools, manages context, and decides when to stop) is often under-specified.
By Naman Vats, Oleg Golev
The paper investigates how language‑model judges can make version‑dependent errors when evaluating upgraded agents. Using 35 public coding‑agent submissions, two customer‑service agents, and over a thousand expert‑labeled trajectories, the authors show that fixed judges often reject task‑conditioned error invariance and can incorrectly approve failed patches, especially as agent capability increases. Paired audits of current outputs reduce interval width only marginally, and the study concludes that independent human patch review is still necessary.
By Jiapeng Li