RewardHarness: Self-Evolving Agentic Post-Training
Abstract
Domain fit: AI-core · Core AI workload signals detected from paper context and implementation/artifact evidence.
Evaluating instruction-guided image edits requires rewards that reflect subtle human preferences, yet current reward models typically depend on large-scale preference annotation and additional model training. This creates a data-efficiency gap: humans can often infer the target evaluation criteria from only a few examples, while models are usually trained on hundreds of thousands of comparisons. We present RewardHarness, a self-evolving agentic reward framework that reframes reward modeling as context evolution rather than weight optimization. Instead of learning from large-scale annotations, RewardHarness aligns with human preferences by iteratively evolving a library of tools and skills from as few as 100 preference demonstrations. Given a source image, candidate edited images, and an editing instruction, an Orchestrator selects the most relevant subset of tools and skills from the maintained library, and a frozen Sub-Agent uses them to construct a reasoning chain that produces a preference judgment. By comparing predicted judgments with ground-truth preferences and analyzing successes and failures in the reasoning process, the Orchestrator automatically refines its library of tools and skills without additional human annotation. Using only 0.05% of the EditReward preference data, RewardHarness achieves 47.4% average accuracy on image-editing evaluation benchmarks, surpassing GPT-5 by 5.3 points. When used as a reward signal for GRPO fine-tuning, RL-tuned models achieve 3.52 on ImgEdit-Bench. Project page: https://rewardharness.com.
Results and benchmarks
Evaluating instruction-guided image edits requires rewards that reflect subtle human preferences, yet current reward models typically depend on large-scale preference annotation and additional model training.
Benchmark evidence is limited
Evidence graph: 2 refs, 1 links.
Utility signals: depth 95/100, grounding 68/100, status medium.
Implementation
No direct implementation yet
Maintained implementation evidence is not confirmed for this paper yet.
Use the implementation status and reproduction sections for the current action plan.
No verified maintained repo yet
There is no verified maintained implementation yet. Use this baseline plan to decide whether to prototype now or defer.
- No direct maintained implementation was found. Use the paper PDF and citation graph to design a baseline reproduction.
- Track assumptions and missing details in an experiment log before coding.
Time to first repro: a few days
Recommendation evidence is currently too limited for a maintained-repo choice. Use Implementation Status and Reproduction Path for a practical baseline plan.
- Estimate is based on paper-only reproduction flow
Compare implementation paths
Compare maintenance quality, reproducibility coverage, and evidence confidence before choosing a reproduction baseline.
- Maintenance
- Active
- Confidence
- Medium
- Reproducibility
- Strong
- Stars
- 19
- Last push
- Aug 18, 2026 (7d)
Matched via arXiv identifier search · Strong overlap with paper title keywords
- No Docker setup
- Maintenance
- Recently updated
- Confidence
- Medium
- Reproducibility
- Moderate
- Stars
- 3
- Last push
- May 18, 2026 (99d)
Matched via arXiv identifier search · Strong overlap with paper title keywords
- No CI pipeline detected
- No Docker setup
- Maintenance
- Recently updated
- Confidence
- Low
- Reproducibility
- Moderate
- Stars
- 0
- Last push
- Jun 3, 2026 (83d)
Matched via arXiv identifier search
- No CI pipeline detected
- No tagged releases
- No Docker setup
Reproduction readiness
No repo
No verified implementation available
- No maintained repository has been identified for this paper. Check adjacent implementations or HF artifacts below.
Hardware requirements
- Expect multi-day setup/compute for meaningful reproduction based on current guidance.
Repositories and ecosystem
Official
No additional official repositories detected.
Community
- TIGER-AI-Lab/RewardHarnessConfidence: Medium
Self-evolving agentic reward framework for image-editing evaluation — 47.4% on EditReward-Bench from only 100 preference demos, no reward-model training. arXiv 2605.08703.
19 stars · 7 forks · Last push Aug 18, 2026 · NOASSERTION license
These repositories had low-confidence matching signals and are hidden by default.
- KlingAIResearch/RewardHarness
Confidence: Medium · 3 stars
- shiyt23/VideoRewardHarness
Confidence: Low · 0 stars
- enhansome/enhansome-evals
Confidence: Low · 0 stars
Hugging Face artifacts
No trustworthy direct or curated related Hugging Face artifacts were found yet. Use targeted searches to quickly locate candidate models, datasets, and demos.
Tip: start with models, then check datasets and spaces if you need evaluation data or demos.
Research context
Tasks
Instruction tuning, Agentic tool use
Methods
Agentic systems
Domains
Computer vision, Large Language Models, AI Agents
Open this paper in HFEPX to review benchmark signals, evaluation modes, and human-feedback protocol context.
Open in HFEPXJump to Paper2Code search queries derived from this paper's research context.