Dissecting model behavior through agent trajectories
Quick Answer
The paper identifies the 'intent-execution' gap in AI agents, emphasizing its significance alongside harness design.
Quick Take
The paper identifies the 'intent-execution' gap in AI agents, emphasizing its significance alongside harness design. The 'Simple Strands Agent' (SSA) demonstrates improved performance on benchmarks like SWE-Pro and Terminal-Bench-2, analyzing 138k trajectories to uncover model-specific problem-solving behaviors.
Key Points
- SSA reproduces or improves pass@1 performance on SWE-Pro and Terminal-Bench-2 benchmarks.
- The intent-execution gap affects how models translate capabilities into agent performance.
- SSA analyzes 138k trajectories to reveal differences in problem-solving behaviors among models.
- Finer metrics like edit frequency and testing activity provide insights into model effort allocation.
- The study emphasizes the importance of harness-model alignment in AI agent design.
Paper Resources
Article Content
From source RSS / original summaryarXiv:2606. 17454v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: AI agent performance is not just a modeling problem, it is fundamentally a systems problem. The advanced capabilities of models are realized through agent harnesses. Therefore, a gap between model assumptions and harness behavior can easily prevent the model's full capabilities from translating into agent performance. We formalize this as the `intent-execution' gap: the mismatch between what the model intends and what the harness executes, and vice versa.
We argue that minimizing this intent-execution gap is as important as other aspects of harness design such as tools and execution loops. To illustrate the impact of this harness-model alignment, we develop a simple and customizable harness called `Simple Strands Agent' (SSA). SSA aims to find the bulk of common patterns which generalize across different model families (such as Claude, Gemini, GPT, Grok, Qwen), as well as a small number of model-specific preferences.
We make two contributions: (i) we $\textbf{reproduce or improve on the pass@1}$ performance reported by diverse model-provider families on popular agentic benchmarks (SWE-Pro, SWE-Verified and Terminal-Bench-2), and (ii) building on an $\textbf{analysis of 138k trajectories generated by SSA}$, we look beyond the $\texttt{pass@1}$ numbers which tend to be relatively even across frontier models. By representing agent trajectories in code state-spaces, we observe model-level differences in problem-solving behavior.
Finer-grained metrics such as edit frequency, testing activity, and phase-transitions reveal how individual models allocate effort across different stages of autonomous problem solving.
Reader Mode unavailable (could not extract clean content).
Want this in your inbox every morning?
Daily brief at your local 8am — bilingual EN/中文, free.
More from arXiv cs.AI
See more →Arbor: Tree Search as a Cognition Layer for Autonomous Agents
Arbor introduces a multi-agent framework utilizing structured tree search for optimizing LLM inference, achieving up to 193% throughput-latency improvement compared to vendor-optimized systems. It employs an Orchestrator and Critic agent for stability and coordination, demonstrating hardware-agnostic performance with minimal variance.