Fast Models, Slow Evidence: A Paired and Self-Audited Evaluation of System-1 Decision Models for LLM Agent Harnesses
Read the original on arXiv AI →The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv AI.
The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv AI.
arXiv:2604. 16706v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Automated evaluation of tool-using large language model (LLM) agents is widely assumed to be reliable, yet this assumption is rarely validated against human annotation.
arXiv:2609.37647v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Jev is a commercial System One model from TypeSafe AI that does not generate text: given a state and typed questions, it returns a choice from fixed...
The paper investigates why large‑language‑model coding agents rarely request a second chunk of tool output, focusing on the precision‑at‑1 rate ($p_1$) of the gold item appearing first in the first chunk. In a benchmark of 500 software‑engineering tasks, the authors compare six value functions and find that increasing $p_1$ does not systematically improve downstream accuracy; the agent can recover the correct answer from any position within the chunk. Adding file‑metadata signals to a keyword scorer actually reduces $p_1$, while a parameter‑free keyword scorer improves $p_1$ but still fails to boost overall accuracy.
arXiv:2609.35889v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Tool-using language-model agents select and execute third-party artifacts. Different implementations can return the requested output while producing...
Mingbird is a local‑first agent harness designed for small open‑weight language models (2–9 B) that run on ordinary laptops. It introduces ten mechanisms—such as a byte‑level net‑zero prefill budget, a finish gate that re‑reads the task before accepting completion, and signature‑level loop detection—to address common failure modes that arise from the harness rather than the model itself. In controlled experiments on the LRAB benchmark and the $ au^2$‑bench, Mingbird achieves higher overall scores (0.886 and 0.856 respectively) compared to other harnesses, and its ablation studies show that each mechanism contributes measurable performance gains.
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.