Hugging Face Trending Papers

Your Policy Is Secretly a Harness: The Decision Geometry of Agent Interfaces

Read the original on Hugging Face Trending Papers →

The paper investigates how language model agents learn from the harnesses—prompts, tools, and control logic—used during post‑training and deployment. It shows that under KL‑regularized control, a policy’s log odds encode the harness’s action preferences, meaning a trained policy carries those preferences. The study demonstrates that changing the harness alters both the achievable return (the ceiling) and the policy’s mismatch, and that comparing agents across different harnesses conflates these effects. Experiments on MiniWoB++ and Terminal‑Bench Lite reveal that a model’s success can drop dramatically when the harness is altered, while new harnesses that raise the ceiling can improve performance after further training, with ceiling and mismatch predicting these gains.

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 Hugging Face Trending Papers.

arXiv Computation and Language
Oct 28

Your Policy Is Secretly a Harness: The Decision Geometry of Agent Interfaces

The paper investigates how language‑model agents learn from the harnesses—prompts, tools, and control logic—through which they are deployed. Using KL‑regularized control, it shows that a trained policy’s log odds reflect the harness’s action preferences, and that the agent’s deployed return equals the harness’s best possible return minus a mismatch term caused by the policy’s suboptimal choices. Experiments on MiniWoB++ and Terminal‑Bench Lite demonstrate that changing harnesses can drastically alter performance, and that the ceiling‑minus‑mismatch metric predicts gains better than either component alone.

By Jian Mu, Ruibo Shen, Yao Shu
Hugging Face Trending Papers
Oct 27

Does Your Generalist Skill Optimizer Really Incentivize Agentic Tasks? Rethinking Skill Optimization via Bipartite Attribution

The paper introduces BiPA, a method to evaluate skill optimizers that rewrite natural‑language procedures for agents performing long‑horizon tasks. BiPA replays the optimizer’s acceptance rule on identical candidates to isolate selection effects and records each episode as a bipartite graph of turns and read text, revealing that learned skills only marginally outperform hand‑written seeds and that many gains vanish on test data. The study finds optimizers add extra input tokens and turns, and proposes four design principles for more reliable skill editing.

arXiv Machine Learning
Sep 29

Reinforcement Learning of Communication in a Mesh of Small Language Models

The paper introduces TalkMesh, a decentralized network of small language model agents that learn to communicate effectively during inference. Each agent proposes an answer, scores it with a confidence head, and the most confident agent broadcasts a hint; lower‑confidence agents revise their proposals if a new suggestion scores higher. This gossip‑based consensus, trained via group relative policy optimization, enables a mesh of three agents to match the accuracy of majority voting over 32 samples, and scales to larger meshes to significantly boost performance on benchmarks like GSM8K and MATH-500.

By Mehmet Kerem Turkcan
arXiv AI
Sep 7

What Does Multi-Harness RL Learn? Credit Assignment and Portability in Coding Agents

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 Machine Learning
Aug 27

A Comedy of Estimators: On KL Regularization in RL Training of LLMs

The paper investigates how different estimators of the reverse Kullback–Leibler (KL) divergence used as a regularization term in reinforcement learning (RL) training of large language models (LLMs) affect training stability and downstream performance. By analyzing gradient bias across various estimator configurations, the authors demonstrate that biased gradients can cause training instabilities, while unbiased configurations improve performance on both in‑domain and out‑of‑domain tasks. Experiments on Qwen2.5‑7B, Llama‑3.1‑8B‑Instruct, and Qwen3‑4B‑Instruct‑2507 confirm these findings and show that KL regularization also stabilizes off‑policy RL training in asynchronous setups.

By Vedant Shah, Johan Obando-Ceron, Vineet Jain, Brian Bartoldson, Bhavya Kailkhura, Sarthak Mittal, Glen Berseth, Pablo Samuel Castro, Yoshua Bengio, Esmeralda S. Whitammer, Moksh Jain, Siddarth Venkatraman, Aaron Courville
arXiv AI
Oct 2

Cross-Benchmark Transfer from RL on Agentic Coding Tasks

The paper reports that applying reinforcement learning (RL) to the Kimi K2.7 Code model on 1,700 agentic coding tasks improves its performance on six external benchmarks. After a single epoch of GSPO training on a rank‑32 LoRA adapter, pass‑@1 scores increased across all benchmarks, with significant gains even on data released after training. The trained model also reduces agent steps and avoids common failure modes such as dropping requirements or breaking existing behavior.

By Sushant Mehta, Logan Ritchie, Edwin Chen