Upload README.md with huggingface_hub

README.md

@@ -128,6 +128,7 @@ One-shot investigations that don't fit the leaderboard format — claim verifica
 
 | Report | Finding |
 |---|---|
+| [Bias-only steering: nothing moves at bounded budget, and random rewards match correct ones](reports/bias-only-steering.md) · [chart](reports/steering-claimed-vs-measured.png) | Bias-Only Reasoning Steering (arXiv 2505.18706, EMNLP 2025) claims RL-training one bias vector per layer (~0.0016% of params, added to mlp.down_proj) matches full RL fine-tuning: Qwen2.5-Math-7B MATH500 52.2 to 79.9 (steering even beats full-FT). Their pinned stack is dead on arrival on consumer Blackwell — torch 2.6.0+cu124/vllm 0.8.5 fails its first kernel launch on sm_120 — so the recipe was reimplemented from their own configs (RLOO, steering lr 1e-3, qwen_math template, DeepScaleR) at a matched bounded budget (20 steps x 8 prompts x 8 generations, ~1,280 rollouts vs their ~645K), plus the controls neither paper reports: their-own-config LoRA (r4, down_proj only), random-reward steering (Spurious-Rewards protocol), and a zero-training 'To'-prefix probe of their companion paper's first-token-substitution mechanism. A five-arm null: base 54.6 MATH500 / 45.0 AMC23 (reproduces their 52.2/45.8 starting point), steering 54.4/45.0, LoRA 53.8/40.0, random-reward steering 54.2/45.0, 'To'-prefix 53.0 — every arm is the base. Correct rewards buy nothing over coin flips at this budget, and the claimed ~10-11pt 'To'-prefix gain lands at -1.6 on the standard template, where the base's generations already open with 'To'. Wall-clock decomposition (identical across arms): rollouts 75%, backward+update 25%, grading under 1% — the '34s vs 52m' headline counts only the optimizer sliver, and the slice that shrinks with trainable-param count is ~none of a step; on 32GB the real bias-only win is memory (full-param 7B RL does not fit at all; ~100K bias params train comfortably). Bounds where the gain is not (early), does not refute their full-recipe endpoint. Steering checkpoints served in stock vLLM via a Qwen2-to-Llama re-badge (mlp_bias=true), fp32-verified logit-identical. |
 | [Ornith-1.0-35B's self-written scaffold doesn't survive a different harness](reports/ornith-1-0-35b-anchor.md) · [chart](reports/ornith-anchor.png) | DeepReinforce's Ornith-1.0 (MIT) is an RL coder that co-trains a task-specific agent scaffold INTO the weights; the 35B claims 75.6 SWE-bench Verified (the 82.4 headline is the unrunnable 397B flagship), measured in OpenHands. Held the bugs, harness, quant (Q4_K_M), and thinking mode (off) fixed and changed only the model: against the exact base it was post-trained from (Qwen3.5-35B-A3B) in the rig's strict native loop, Ornith-35B resolves 5/12 vs the base's 7/12 — a regression, and a strict subset (it recovers nothing the base missed). The two losses (astropy-12907, xarray-3677) are bugs the base solved, lost to tool-call JSON fragility: Ornith emits multi-line bash with unescaped newlines, llama-server's strict parser 500s, and even after the loop is hardened to feed the error back and let it retry (a fix inert for the base, which never 500s), it burns its full 40-step budget producing no patch. The reading: their 75.6 lives in a lenient harness with the model's own scaffold; stripped to a strict neutral loop the self-scaffold model is more fragile than the base it was trained from, so the orchestration didn't travel. An agentic-coding number is a property of the model and the harness, not the model alone. And the rig's own synthetic Agentic Score is worse than blind to it: it ranks Ornith-35B at 98.06, ABOVE the base's 97.5 (#6 on the board), while Ornith resolves fewer real bugs — the synthetic axis inverts the ranking, scoring fluent tool-driving rather than real-bug fixing. Not a refutation of the 75.6 (different harness, temperature, and scaffold); the 397B flagship is datacenter-only and untested. The fourth Qwen-family coding tune to regress on the real anchor — only pi-tune, trained on real agent traces, improved. |
 | [Swap the agent harness, not the model: a +1/12 persistence lever](reports/omp-harness-as-variable.md) · [chart](reports/omp-harness-as-variable.png) | How much of an agentic-coding score is the model and how much is the harness wrapped around it? Held the model fixed (Qwen3.6-27B-Q6_K, one local llama-server on a 5090, think-off, temp 0) and swapped only the agent scaffold, graded on 12 SWE-bench Verified bugs with the official harness. The rig-native tool loop (40-step budget) resolves 8/12; omp v16.1.14 (a deps-free CLI agent, 450s budget, same model and `:8090` endpoint) resolves 9/12 — a strict superset, the lone delta being sphinx-8621. The mechanism is persistence, not reasoning: on the 4 hard bugs the native loop committed no patch (gave up) 3 times, omp once; omp lands patches where native quits, and one of those passed. Both harnesses miss the same 3 bugs (seaborn-3187, requests-1921, pylint-7080) — same model, same ceiling, so the scaffold only moves the give-up rate. Empty-patch rate is the give-up tell, here separating two harnesses on a fixed model. Honest limits: n=12 single seed, so the +1 is inside the noise (the signal is the direction plus the mechanism); the budgets differ by construction (steps vs wall-clock), which is the point — a harness is prompt plus tools plus stopping policy, bundled. The inverse of the Ornith-1.0 claim the rig tests next (RL that bakes the scaffold into training). |
 | [Qwen-AgentWorld's zero-fine-tune transfer doesn't reproduce on a 5090](reports/agentworld-lwm-transfer.md) · [chart](reports/agentworld-lwm-transfer.png) | Qwen-AgentWorld (arXiv 2606.24597) trains a language world model to predict environment transitions and claims the warm-up transfers to agentic tasks with zero agent fine-tuning, +3.4-12.8%. Tested the released LWM-warmed 35B-A3B against its own base Qwen3.5-35B-A3B in a think-OFF/temp-0 controlled A/B on one RTX 5090. The synthetic agentic board is flat (97.5 = 97.5, a saturated axis that hides differences); the real SWE-bench Verified anchor (30 bugs, official harness) goes 14/30 vs the base's 16/30 — a reshuffle rather than a collapse (11 solved by both, 3 AgentWorld-only, 5 base-only), net -2 with more give-ups (13 empty patches vs 10, mean 33/40 steps: it explores more and commits fewer fixes). The claimed +3.4-12.8% transfer lands at 0% on synthetic and -12.5% on real coding. A scoped null: think-OFF to match the base's banked number, so it doesn't refute a think-ON gain (that A/B is the queued falsification leg), and it tests the SWE-coding slice of a seven-domain claim. |