parity.md

Parity: explorer (original) vs Harbor

Original side: the MiMo RL Environment Explorer's runner (app/runner/domains.py), which follows Xiaomi's harness.

Harbor side: the tasks this adapter generates, run with agents/mimo_opencode.py and jobs/*.yaml.

Both sides use the same settings:

• Agent: OpenCode 1.18.32.
• Model: zai-org/GLM-5.3 via deepinfra, thinking low, replies up to 65,536 tokens.
• Step limit: the reference limit for each dataset.
• Sandbox: HF Sandbox, same flavors.
• Judges: Inkling (text) and Llama-4-Maverick (vision).
• Graders: the same vendored code.

Sanity check: 1 task per dataset, 1 run per side (2026-09-26)

The first parity task of each dataset, chosen by --split parity.

Dataset	Task	Explorer	Harbor	Notes
code	format-code-task-000192	0.0	0.0	hidden tests fail on both sides
cyber	arvo_13428	1.0	1.0	Harbor's earlier valid run scored 0: the model patched the bug instead of submitting a PoC
general	s3k_0057_accounting_audit_tax_en_t2_rl_008	0.625	0.625	the same rubric score
terminal	candidate-0109-science-robotics	0.0	1.0	the explorer run passed 6 of 7 tests (one edge case failed); the task scores all or nothing
webdev	dasyn_260630_00561	0.76	0.747	the same judge on two different sites
music	music-gK-0229	0.0	0.0	both rejected by the validity gate for bars of the wrong length

These runs cost about $2.40 on the explorer side and about the same on Harbor.

This is one run per side. It shows that both sides set up, run and grade each dataset the same way. It doesn't yet measure parity, which Harbor defines as overlapping score ranges over at least 2 runs per side.

What the sanity runs found and fixed

• Webdev's grader couldn't import its rubric. The vendored files use package-relative imports, so they now ship as the webdev package.
• General's verifier printed the first characters of the judge key. Harbor scrubs whole secrets only, so the grader now redacts key-shaped text in its output and in every verifier file.
• Harbor blanked every 65536 in the results. It treats env vars named *TOKEN* as secrets, and OPENCODE_EXPERIMENTAL_OUTPUT_TOKEN_MAX qualifies. The agent class now sets that variable itself.
• A trial with no model access still records reward 0. Harbor keeps the trial and scores it 0, with no verifier error. When comparing, look at agent/opencode.txt: 0 steps with an auth error means an infrastructure failure, not a model result.
• The explorer's Music runner had been broken since the security audit (httpx.stream with extensions=). It is fixed in app/runner/domains.py.

Full parity: 36 tasks, 3 runs per side (2026-09-27)

The parity subset (--split parity): 6 tasks per dataset, fixed by the sha256 of the task id. Run 1 was done on both sides before runs 2 and 3, as Harbor's parity guide asks. Each run's score is the mean reward over the tasks that side scored. Scores are mean ± sample SEM over the three runs.

Dataset	Tasks	Original (mean ± SEM)	Harbor (mean ± SEM)	Original runs	Harbor runs	Ranges overlap
Code	6	0.556 ± 0.056	0.556 ± 0.056	0.667, 0.500, 0.500	0.667, 0.500, 0.500	yes
Cyber	6	0.822 ± 0.011	0.833 ± 0.096	0.800, 0.833, 0.833	1.000, 0.667, 0.833	yes
General	6	0.844 ± 0.008	0.844 ± 0.024	0.842, 0.832, 0.859	0.890, 0.811, 0.832	yes
Music	6	0.111 ± 0.063	0.317 ± 0.093	0.000, 0.114, 0.219	0.138, 0.449, 0.363	yes
Terminal	6	0.278 ± 0.056	0.111 ± 0.056	0.333, 0.333, 0.167	0.167, 0.167, 0.000	yes
Webdev	6	0.749 ± 0.049	0.738 ± 0.054	0.650, 0.803, 0.793	0.799, 0.631, 0.785	yes

All six datasets meet Harbor's criterion: the run-score ranges overlap. Code, Cyber, General and Webdev agree closely.

• Terminal (0.278 vs 0.111): each task is all or nothing, and outcomes flip in both directions on both sides (for example candidate-0109 scored 0/1/1 in the explorer and 0/1/0 in Harbor). With six tasks, that is noise.
• Music (0.111 vs 0.317): the validity gate makes each piece close to pass or fail, and it flips run to run on both sides. Harbor passes the gate more often (7 of 18 pieces vs 4 of 18). That fits Music's one intended difference: in Harbor the agent writes its reply to a file with up to 4 steps, where the original is a single completion.

Infrastructure failures were rerun, not counted.

• Some first attempts timed out talking to the sandbox API (about 26 sandboxes ran at once): 9 original-side and 6 Harbor-side tasks in run 1, fewer in later runs. Those were rerun at lower concurrency.
• arvo_49407 run 1 failed on both sides the same way: the agent started 16 parallel fuzzers on a 2-vCPU cpu-basic sandbox and starved the sandbox server. It is excluded from run 1 on both sides.

The explorer side of these runs cost about $77; the Harbor side about the same. parity_experiment.json has the raw numbers in Harbor's format.