Skip to content
Trending storyPast story

Same tool toggle: Nemotron-3 550B gained, Mistral-Medium-3.5 crashed

1 report1 sourceupdated 6 days ago

What happened

Summary

一项新研究把编程智能体的外层控制软件拆成了任务规划、上下文管理和动作接口三个独立开关,挨个测试。最扎眼的结果是:把预设的文件读写工具全撤掉、换成纯命令行后,Nemotron-3 550B 在代码修复任务上的成功率涨了 3.6 个百分点,单任务估算成本从 2.33 美元砍到 1.11 美元;但 Mistral-Medium-3.5-128B 的成功率却从...

Coverage

Follow the reports to see the story from different sides.

Sep 23
  1. Computing Life · Share · YagePick
    Same tool toggle: Nemotron-3 550B gained, Mistral-Medium-3.5 crashed

    A new paper breaks down coding agent harnesses into three independent toggles and measures each one. The most striking result: switching from dedicated file tools to a pure CLI made Nemotron-3 550B's SWE-Bench Verified score jump 3.6 pp while cutting per-task cost from $2.33 to $1.11, but Mistral-Medium-3.5-128B dropped from 68.60% to 45.40%. Trajectory analysis shows 550B composing dense shell one-liners, while Mistral failed to locate files in 32.80% of tasks and submitted no edits. On Terminal-Bench 2.1, both models improved under CLI mode. Planning boosted the 30B model from 13.60% to 25.20% but only saved ~30% cost for larger models without accuracy gains. Context management mainly prevents window overflow; at 128k the gap shrinks to 2.7 pp, and complex read-back mechanisms were almost never invoked. The takeaway: no universal best harness design—it depends on the model's CLI fluency and the task type.