[D] [DISCUSS] Run Maka on FrontierHarness Eval: community help and a $100–150 budget [maka]

["Astro-Han (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>]

GitHub user Astro-Han created a discussion: [DISCUSS] Run Maka on FrontierHarness Eval: community help and a $100–150 budget

I'd like to organize a community run of **Maka on [Runta's FrontierHarness Eval](https://github.com/frontier-harness-eval/eval)** and publish the results alongside the existing harness baselines.

The scope is deliberately small: **run Maka only, on the published 30-task suite**. We would use the published results for other harnesses as reference points, rather than pay to rerun the whole comparison.

### Proposed setup

- **Model and provider:** Kimi K3 through Fireworks, using the standard serving path, not Fast.
- **Execution:** Runta runtimes and the public FrontierHarness workflow, with a clean checkpoint restore for each task.
- **Tasks:** the published 21 Terminal-Bench tasks and 9 DeepSWE tasks.
- **Versions:** pin Maka, the evaluation workflow, and task dependencies; record the actual configuration and run date.
- **Bring-up:** validate integration and scoring on separate smoke tasks before spending the formal-run budget. Reuse Maka's existing eval integration where it fits.

### Budget

I propose a **$100–150 total spending cap for the first Maka run**, including setup and runtime costs. This is a planning limit, not a measured Maka cost or a guarantee that the run will fit.

For scale, summing the published standardized task costs gives about **$69 for Codex** and **$44 for Pi**, each with all 30 task costs present. Those figures include failures, use the benchmark's pricing/cache normalization, and exclude runtime charges; they are not live provider invoices. [Published data](https://github.com/frontier-harness-eval/eval/blob/e837a70bd6beb4e72eeeda62dd06e3bd34f6cb63/results/eval-data.json).

Runta currently offers $50 in trial runtime credit for new accounts, which may cover the execution environment if available to the account we use. **Fireworks API usage is separate.** [Runta pricing](https://runta.com/pricing/).

### What we would publish

Maka's pass rate, task-level outcomes, token costs, runtime, and failure analysis, together with pinned configuration and reproducible instructions. We should retain formal failures and disclose missing evidence or infrastructure-invalid trials.

This would be a **later, independent Maka run**, not a simultaneous reproduction of the original experiment. The comparison should clearly disclose version, serving, and environment differences, especially for latency and cache-sensitive cost measurements. Both the actual spend and the benchmark-standardized cost would be useful.

### Join in

Would anyone like to help with:

- Maka integration and a smoke run on Runta;
- checking task setup, verifiers, and the comparison methodology;
- contributing API credits or helping cover the capped run costs;
- reviewing the results and write-up?

If you're interested, please reply with the part you'd like to help with. We can agree on an operator, available credits, and the expense arrangement here before starting paid runs. Please don't post API keys.

Any personal cost-sharing would need a clearly identified organizer and an expense record; this thread is a proposal, not an ASF or Apache Maka fundraising campaign. If support is arranged as official project sponsorship, we should coordinate the appropriate route with the mentors.


GitHub link: https://github.com/apache/maka/discussions/5056

----
This is an automatically sent email for dev@maka.apache.org.
To unsubscribe, please send an email to: dev-unsubscribe@maka.apache.org


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maka.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maka.apache.org

Re: [D] [DISCUSS] Run Maka on FrontierHarness Eval: community help and a $100–150 budget [maka]

["liuxiaocs7 (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>]

GitHub user liuxiaocs7 edited a comment on the discussion: [DISCUSS] Run Maka on FrontierHarness Eval: community help and a $100–150 budget

Thanks @Astro-Han for putting this forward — it's a valuable and worthwhile effort. Publishing a reproducible Maka run against the FrontierHarness suite, with pinned config and disclosed environment differences, is exactly the kind of grounded, community-verifiable evidence the project benefits from. I also appreciate that the scope is kept deliberately small and the budget framed as a planning cap rather than a promise.

I'd like to help. Happy to take on (including but not limited to):

- **Maka integration + a Runta smoke run** — validating the integration and scoring on the separate smoke tasks before any formal-run spend, reusing Maka's existing eval integration where it fits.
- **Checking task setup, verifiers, and the comparison methodology** — sanity-checking the 21 Terminal-Bench + 9 DeepSWE task configs, the verifiers, checkpoint-restore isolation, and making sure version/serving/environment differences (especially latency- and cache-sensitive cost) are clearly disclosed in the write-up.

Let me know which piece would be most useful to pick up first.

GitHub link: https://github.com/apache/maka/discussions/5056#discussioncomment-18357356

----
This is an automatically sent email for dev@maka.apache.org.
To unsubscribe, please send an email to: dev-unsubscribe@maka.apache.org


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maka.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maka.apache.org

Re: [D] [DISCUSS] Run Maka on FrontierHarness Eval: community help and a $100–150 budget [maka]

["liuxiaocs7 (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>]

GitHub user liuxiaocs7 added a comment to the discussion: [DISCUSS] Run Maka on FrontierHarness Eval: community help and a $100–150 budget

Thanks @Astro-Han for putting this forward — it's a valuable and worthwhile effort. Publishing a reproducible Maka run against the FrontierHarness suite, with pinned config and disclosed environment differences, is exactly the kind of grounded, community-verifiable evidence the project benefits from. I also appreciate that the scope is kept deliberately small and the budget framed as a planning cap rather than a promise.

I'd like to help. Happy to take on (including but not limited to):

- **Maka integration + a Runta smoke run** — validating the integration and scoring on the separate smoke tasks before any formal-run spend, reusing Maka's existing eval integration where it fits.
- **Checking task setup, verifiers, and the comparison methodology** — sanity-checking the 21 Terminal-Bench + 9 DeepSWE task configs, the verifiers, checkpoint-restore isolation, and making sure version/serving/environment differences (especially latency- and cache-sensitive cost) are clearly disclosed in the write-up.

I'm glad to align on an operator, credits, and the expense arrangement here before anything paid starts, and to keep everything reproducible and honest about missing or infra-invalid trials. Let me know which piece would be most useful to pick up first.

GitHub link: https://github.com/apache/maka/discussions/5056#discussioncomment-18357356

----
This is an automatically sent email for dev@maka.apache.org.
To unsubscribe, please send an email to: dev-unsubscribe@maka.apache.org


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maka.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maka.apache.org