[Reproduction] Questions about the Terminal-Bench 2.1 setup for GLM-5.3-Flash

#51
by YJSoooooo - opened

Hi Z.ai team,

I am trying to reproduce the reported 84.3 score of GLM-5.3-Flash on Terminal-Bench 2.1.

I ran all 89 tasks with five trials per task using:

  • GLM-5.3-Flash via Z.ai Coding Plan
  • Agent harness: [claude-code 2.1.207]
  • reasoning_effort=max
  • temperature=1.0
  • top_p=1.0
  • max_new_tokens=65536
  • 6-hour timeout per task trial
  • Dataset revision: [ terminal-bench/terminal-bench-2-1 @ sha256:7d7bdc1cbedad549fc1140404bd4dc45e5fd0ea7c4186773687d177ad3a0699a]
  • harbor 0.22.0

My result was:

  • pass@5: 93.26% (83/89 tasks solved at least once)
  • Trial-level accuracy: 68.31%% (304/445 successful trials)

I realize that pass@5 may not be directly comparable to the reported 84.3, because the model card does not specify the aggregation metric.

Could you clarify:

  1. Whether 84.3 is trial-level accuracy, pass@1, pass@5, or another metric;
  2. How many trials were run per task;
  3. Whether the 6-hour timeout was an outer trial timeout or an override of the task-level agent timeout;
  4. The exact Terminal-Bench 2.1 dataset revision;
  5. The Claude Code configuration, including context/compaction, system prompt, tools, permissions, and maximum turns;
  6. Whether task-level CPU, memory, verifier timeout, and other resource settings were preserved;
  7. Whether the result used the public Coding Plan/API endpoint or an internal checkpoint.

Sharing the Harbor command or evaluation configuration would be very helpful for reproduction.

Thanks!

Sign up or log in to comment