The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv Computation and Language.
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.
The paper evaluates a manager‑worker scaffold that uses a shared filesystem workspace to orchestrate multi‑agent large language model (LLM) coding tasks without training or tuning. Across nine models—including five open‑weight and four closed‑weight systems—the scaffold yields statistically significant accuracy gains for some models (e.g., Qwen3.8‑27B, GPT‑5.6‑Luna, GPT‑5.6‑Terra, Kimi‑K3, Minimax‑M3) while producing null or negative effects for others (e.g., Qwen3.6‑35B). The study shows that the manager can triple token usage but still achieves higher accuracy at a fraction of the cost compared to larger single‑pass models, with key mechanisms identified as context management and problem decomposition.
The study evaluates how to best split tasks among large‑language‑model agents for cross‑border VAT determination, comparing one broad agent to configurations ranging from one to five narrow agents. Across 4,400 runs—including token‑matched and failure‑injection scenarios—the intermediate configurations achieved the highest accuracy but did not surpass the fine‑endpoint benchmark, leaving the optimal decomposition hypothesis unconfirmed. The pilot provides a preregistered heuristic for right‑sizing decomposition, along with an oracle, dataset, and analysis pipeline.
The paper introduces GRADE, a graph-based representation of large language model (LLM) agent executions that captures both execution steps and their dependencies. By adding graded dependency edges—observed, declared, or inferred—to the trace, the authors evaluate how this dependency layer affects failure prediction across six corpora involving tool use, coding, and web tasks. Experiments show that the dependency block can improve prediction in some settings, but its effectiveness varies with the evaluation probe and corpus, and controlled experiments demonstrate that the observed structure is not merely a degree-matched artifact.
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.
arXiv:2604. 00392v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Agents that synthesize their own tools ship a second artifact alongside each answer: a software library that future tasks reuse, compose, and depend on.