Back to corpus
architecturetechnical paper candidatescore 38

SEA-0.2-COMPLETE

| Metric | Value | Target | Verdict | |--------|-------|--------|---------| | Model available | MiniMax-M2.5 (229B, TQ1_0) | running | **PASS** | | Mean latency (production) | 3,834ms | <5,000ms | **PASS** | | P50 latency | 3,449ms | <5,000ms | **PASS** | | P95 latency | 6,381ms | <5,000ms | **FAIL** (low-relevance only) | | Scoring discrimination | 0.90 vs 0.10 | clear separation | **PASS** | | Full pipeline P50 | ~3.7s | <30s | **PASS** | | JSON output quality | valid, well-structured | parseable | **PASS** |

Full HTML reader

Read the full artifact

Open in new tab

Extracted abstract or opening context

## Summary Benchmarked MiniMax scoring latency against the live MiniMax-M2.5 endpoint at localhost:18080. Ran 30 scoring calls (20 throughput + 10 production-realistic) using the actual SEA Tier 2 activation-judge prompt template across 4 skill profiles and 20 test messages. Mean latency is 3.8s (P50: 3.4s) per scoring call with 500 max_tokens. Scoring quality is exceptional — 0.90 mean for relevant messages vs 0.10 for irrelevant. Full pipeline estimate (embedding + scoring + delivery) is ~3.7s P50, well within the 30s SLO. **Verdict: GO.** ## Changes - File: `phase0-results.md` — replaced "UNREACHABLE" placeholder with full benchmark data (model details, 2 benchmark runs, scoring quality, viability assessment, go/no-go matrix, revised latency budget) - File: `benchmark_minimax_scoring.py` — created benchmark script (20-call latency test with SEA scoring prompt template) - File: `benchmark_results.json` — raw benchmark data (all 20 runs with per-call latency, token counts, server timings) - File: `SEA-0.2-COMPLETE.md` — this completion report | Metric | Value | Target | Verdict | |--------|-------|--------|---------| | Model available | MiniMax-M2.5 (229B, TQ1_0) | running | **PASS** | | Mean latency (production) | 3,834ms | <5,000ms | **PASS** | | P50 latency | 3,449ms | <5,000ms | **PASS** | | P95 latency | 6,381ms | <5,000ms | **FAIL** (low-relevance only) | | Scoring discrimination | 0.90 vs 0.10 | clear separation | **PASS** | | Full pipeline P50 | ~3.7s | <30s | **PASS** | | JSON output quality | valid, well-structured | parseable | **PASS** | ### Important Discovery: Model Change The endpoint serves **MiniMax-M2.5** (229B params), not the originally spec'd MiniMax-3B-v0.1. This is a much more capable reasoning model with chain-of-thought output. Implications: - Scoring quality is excellent (the model reasons about relevance before scoring) - Latency is higher than a 3B model (~3.8s vs estimated ~200-500ms for 3B) - For async Tier 2 use, this is acceptable — user already has the main response - If latency becomes a concern, a 3B model could be added on a separate port ### Production Notes 1. `max_tokens: 500` needed for full reasoning + JSON output 2. JSON parser must handle markdown-fenced output (`` ``) 3. Low-relevance messages take longer (~6s) but don't generate injections 4. Pre-warm recommended to avoid cold-start penalties

Promotion decision

What has to happen next

Promote into a technical note or architecture paper with implementation anchors.

Why this is not always a full paper yet

Corpus pages are public-safe readers for discovered workspace artifacts. They are not automatically final papers. A corpus item becomes a polished paper only after the editable source, evidence checkpoints, references, figures, render path, and release status are attached through the paper schema.