arXiv AI By Zhi Hong, Qianlong Wang, Hongchen Wei, Aidan Wu, Daohong Ying, Mingze Kong, Bei Liu, Chong Luo

HarnessFlow: MCTS-Guided Harness Optimization for LLM Agents

Read the original on arXiv AI →

HarnessFlow is a framework that automates the optimization of executable harnesses for large language model agents using a Monte Carlo Tree Search policy to balance exploration and exploitation. It refines harness candidates through a coding agent that leverages archived code, execution feedback, and reusable mechanisms, operating within a limited evaluation budget. Across six benchmarks covering agentic tasks, coding, and web interaction, HarnessFlow achieves the highest mean test scores, improving average performance by 10.89 percentage points over initial harnesses and 3.95 over Meta-Harness, while also reducing per-task execution costs.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv AI.

arXiv AI
Aug 7

HarnessOpt-Bench: Evaluating LLMs at Harness Optimization

arXiv:2608. 06301v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: As LLMs are increasingly deployed within agentic systems, their capabilities depend not only on the model weights but also on the harness: the prompts, tools, control flow, memory, and orchestration code surrounding them.

By Varun Ursekar, Apaar Shanker, Yash Maurya, Shehab Yasser, Vijay S. Kalmath, Veronica Chatrath, Yuan Xue
arXiv Machine Learning
Sep 22

Strategy Accumulation and Guided Execution for Automated LLM Fine-Tuning

The paper introduces Strategy Accumulation and Guided Execution (SAGE), a two-stage framework that makes automated fine-tuning of large language models cumulative. In the first stage, a multi-agent pipeline uses Monte Carlo Tree Search to explore training strategies while a Distillation Agent records task-specific insights and cross-task confidence scores into a structured repository. In the second stage, SAGE retrieves relevant experience from this repository to guide training on new tasks, achieving a 12.4‑percentage‑point improvement over a baseline pipeline without accumulated experience on nine unseen tasks.

By Haoran Zhao, Wei Du, Dingwen Yang, Jixuan Huang, Junlin Shang, Lingyong Fang, Ya Guo, Tao Gui, Qi Zhang, Xuanjing Huang
arXiv AI
Oct 26

When Agents Fail: Model or Harness--Who's to Blame?

The paper introduces a framework for evaluating large‑language‑model agents by focusing on the interaction between the model and its execution harness. It defines five complementary metrics—Valid Completion Rate, Model‑Harness Fit, Cross‑Model Fit, Interaction Residuals, and Token Load—to assess how reliably agents finish tasks, how well harnesses support specific models, and the overall suitability across models. Using these metrics, the authors evaluate four general‑purpose harnesses and two native systems on six benchmarks, finding that harness rankings differ by model and task and that some harnesses consistently achieve high valid completion rates.

By Shao Zhang, Hangfan Zhang, Yuanyuan Shi, Hao Li, Min-Le Su, Kangcong Li, Jingping Wang, Chunjiang Mu, Chen Zhang, Yang Chen, Bo Zhang, Shuyue Hu
arXiv AI
Oct 1

Composing Task-specific Agent Harnesses at Test Time with Reusable Primitives

The paper introduces Harness Primitives—reusable agent harness mechanisms mined from failed task trajectories—and a framework called STITCH that selects and composes these primitives into task‑specific harnesses at test time. This approach avoids generating or debugging harness code for each task, achieving up to 12‑point gains in task success over fixed harness baselines and outperforming human‑designed harnesses like Codex CLI. STITCH also demonstrates minimal test‑time overhead (2.7%) and scales efficiently with the size of the primitive library.

By Peng Kuang, Haibo Jin, Dehao Wu, Feiyang Deng, Xiaopeng Yuan, Jerry Wang, Haohan Wang