arXiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2609.04518

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

Chenqian Le·Jiayi Cheng·Qijia He·Runhao Li·Yinghao Li·Xupeng Chen
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Agent reinforcement learning (RL) increasingly runs through full execution harnesses, and a multi-harness recipe mixes two choices: exposing the policy to several harnesses, and comparing their rewards inside one relative-advantage group. We isolate the second choice in repository-level coding. From one Qwen3-8B supervised warm start we replay the same frozen task-harness records from Aider, OpenHands, Qwen Code, and SWE-agent, with the same number of updates, under two rules for group-relative policy optimization (GRPO), Within (one group per task-harness pair) and Cross (harnesses pooled within a task), and score every checkpoint with a sealed SWE-bench Verified oracle on four source harnesses and a minimal harness held out of training. The evaluation harness is the dominant variable: across 24,000 sealed evaluations it moves the mean solve rate from 2.14\% to 9.27\%, a factor of 4.3, where the training recipe moves it by 1.16. The grouping rule is not. On the held-out harness, Cross minus Within is +0.25 pp, 95\% confidence interval [-0.48, +1.02], at eight attempts per task, and +0.16 [-0.41, +0.72] pooled over three training seeds whose individual estimates change sign. Each rule's own seed range, 0.42 to 0.45 pp, exceeds the difference between them. Both rules place their largest gains on the same source harness. The pooled advantage carries the harness: an out-of-fold classifier recovers the generating harness from Cross's advantage +4.48 pp above the shuffled-label baseline and from Within's not at all, and the two rules still reach the same held-out score and action distribution inside each harness. Re-collecting half the training data on-policy does not change this. Cross-harness credit yields configuration adaptation and no more portable capability than within-harness credit. Multi-harness RL reports should state the grouping boundary and test under an unseen harness.

Explore related subjects

cs.AI

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Chenqian Le, Jiayi Cheng, Qijia He, Runhao Li, Yinghao Li, Xupeng Chen. 2026-09-03. What Does Multi-Harness RL Learn? Credit Assignment and Portability in Coding Agents. https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.04518

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

Discover connections

cs.AI subject

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Decoupling Readiness from Release for Tail-Aware Scheduling of Agentic LLM Workflows

Agentic LLM workflows consist of sequences of model turns interleaved with tool interactions, so their end-to-end completion time depends not only on inference speed but also on when ready turns are released. Most runtimes release each turn immediately upon readiness. Under contention, this eager release policy can accumulate released but unfinished work; once submitted, those turns can no longer be reordered by the workflow-level policy, increasing tail latency. We present a tail-risk-aware turn release scheduling method that jointly decides which ready turn to release next and how much released but unfinished work to maintain. The method uses a mean--Conditional Value-at-Risk (CVaR) objective to capture the evolving tail risk of unfinished workflows, incorporates online estimates of turn work when prioritizing ready turns, and adapts the released work budget to observed queue pressure. We evaluate the method using real agent execution traces from software engineering tasks across multiple LLMs and workflow arrival rates. The method performs comparably to eager release under light load and substantially reduces the P95 of workflow flow time under contention, achieving up to a \(3.50\times\) speedup.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

Demystifying the Privacy-Utility Trade-off in LLM Interactions

The integration of Large Language Models into daily tasks relies on context-rich instructions, inevitably exposing sensitive user information. Current privacy-preserving methods typically employ context-agnostic static rules, causing severe utility degradation. However, the specific mechanisms governing how sanitization impacts downstream performance remain largely underexplored. To address this, we conduct a systematic analysis to deconstruct the privacy-utility trade-off, uncovering three underlying mechanisms: (1) Context-Dependent Utility, which first establishes when to sanitize by revealing that data value shifts from critical constraints to dispensable noise based on user intent; (2) Strategic Adaptation, which subsequently determines how to sanitize by dictating that the choice between removal and replacement depends on the task's reliance on factual integrity versus structural coherence; and (3) Combinatorial Interplay, which finally extends the protection scope by demonstrating that attributes form a semantic web of synergistic dependencies or antagonistic redundancies. Guided by these insights, we introduce an intent-driven local protection framework. By distilling a lightweight model Veilmind-4B to drive a dynamic extraction-sanitization-restoration pipeline, our approach reaches a low-leakage privacy point while preserving substantially higher response utility than existing privacy-oriented baselines, advancing the privacy-utility trade-off toward the Pareto frontier.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

Defining AI Agents: A Compendium of Criteria, Metrics, and Benchmarks

The term agent in artificial intelligence lacks a standard definition, complicating the evaluation, comparison, and reproducibility of AI agent research. We address this ambiguity through a survey organized around five dimensions of agenticness: environmental interaction, learning and adaptation, autonomy, goal-directed behavior, and temporal coherence. For each dimension, we examine how the underlying capability has been conceptualized across prior work and synthesize the metrics, benchmarks, and evaluation frameworks used to assess it. This review provides a structured account of the current landscape of agent evaluation, highlighting both established approaches and areas where evaluation remains limited or inconsistent. We additionally introduce the Agent Compendium, a public-facing digital resource that organizes and extends the evaluation methods identified through this review. Together, the survey and compendium provide a common structure for evaluating and comparing agent capabilities across AI systems, supporting more reproducible research, clearer communication, and more systematic study of artificial agents.

cs.AI↗