NTH

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

AuthorsJian Mu, Ruibo Shen, Yao Shu

AffiliationsThe Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (Guangzhou) · The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology

November 1, 2026 3 min read
Watch on YouTube
The one-line take

An agent’s performance depends not just on its model, but on how well its learned preferences fit the harness it is given.

Key results

19.2%
Success after reversed observation fields

MiniWoB++ success fell from 85.0% despite unchanged optimal decisions.

90%
Maximum geometry-error reduction

Post-training reduced action-score geometry error by 69% to 90% across harnesses.

88.17%
Adapted batched-click success

H1 adaptation improved success from 72.90% for the frozen source checkpoint.

0.95
Adaptation-gain rank correlation

Ceiling-minus-mismatch predictions ranked gains across eight recorded harness swaps.

64.1%
Highest Terminal-Bench Lite harness accuracy

Qwen3.5-9B accuracy ranged from 47.9% to 64.1% across five coding-agent harnesses.

What the paper found

This paper argues that an agent policy partly internalizes its harness: under KL-regularized control, the optimal policy’s log odds encode the harness’s relative action scores, while the deployed return is exactly the harness’s ceiling minus the policy’s mismatch with the optimum. That distinction explains why a harness can offer better capabilities yet hurt a model whose preferences were trained for another interface. In MiniWoB++, simply reversing observation-field order leaves optimal decisions unchanged but drops Qwen3.5-2B’s success from 85.0% to 19.2%. Post-training makes action preferences harness-specific, reducing geometry error by as much as 90%. Yet adaptation can reverse a frozen comparison: with batched clicks, success under the new harness rises from 72.90% before adaptation to 88.17% after it. Across eight harness swaps, ceiling-minus-mismatch estimates predicted adaptation gains with Spearman ρ = 0.95. The paper also tests coding agents: frozen Qwen3.5-9B accuracy ranges from 47.9% to 64.1% across DeepAgents, Pi coding-agent, DeepSeek Harness, Terminus-2, and mini-SWE-agent on Terminal-Bench Lite. Using GPT-5.6-luna as a teacher to estimate ceiling and mismatch, their difference reproduces the harness accuracy ranking. The central implication is that harnesses should be evaluated not just by frozen-model performance, but by what they can offer and how well a model can learn to use them.

Original abstract

Language model agents are post-trained and deployed through a harness, the prompts, tools, and control logic that present a task to the model and execute its outputs. Harnesses are often revised and judged by how an already trained model performs under them, which assumes that what the model learned under one harness carries over to the next. We ask what a policy learns from its harness and what survives when the harness changes. Under KL-regularized control, we show that the log odds of an optimal policy recover how strongly its harness favors each action over the others, so a trained policy carries the preferences of its harness. Deployed return then equals the ceiling of the harness, the best return it offers, minus the mismatch of the policy, the return lost to its own suboptimal decisions. Training changes only the mismatch, while changing the harness moves both terms. Comparing harnesses with a fixed model therefore mixes what each harness offers with how well that model uses it. In MiniWoB++, post-training makes a model's preferences specific to its training harness. Reversing the order of the observation fields leaves every optimal decision unchanged yet lowers a trained model's success from 85.0% to 19.2%. Conversely, every new harness that a fixed-model comparison rejects but that raises the ceiling outperforms the original agent after further training under it, and ceiling and mismatch measured beforehand predict these gains. For coding-agent harnesses on Terminal-Bench Lite, ceiling minus mismatch estimated with a stronger model as a stand-in for the optimum reproduces the accuracy ranking, while either term alone does not. Code is available at https://github.com/2020-qqtcg/HRP.

Read the original paper

More in AI Agents

Browse all 68 papers →
02Agent

Memory Tax: Dissecting the Net Value of Agent Memory

Xuan He, Sining Zhoubian, Ruozhen Yang, Yuhao Wen, Zhineng Wang, Yuyang Hu, Ke Yang, Yuyu Zhang, Ping Nie, Jiawei Han, ChengXiang Zhai

The paper asks whether agent memory actually helps, or whether it can lose useful evidence compared with retrieving directly from history.

Read analysis
03Agent

AutoEnvScaling: Automating the Data Flywheel with Terminal Agents

Simon Yu, Baolin Peng, Bo Liu, Zhengyan Shi, Zhaoyang Wang, Hao Cheng, Qianhui Wu, Wenlin Yao, Natasha Jaques, Weiyan Shi, Jianfeng Gao

AutoEnvScaling has agents create the training environments that help terminal agents get better at solving tasks.

Read analysis