# Exploring Expert Failures Improves LLM Agent Tuning

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.13145 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.13145/

## Key facts

- Cited by 9 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in General LLM agent frameworks and benchmarks, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use.
- Builds on 38 of its 43 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 17 Apr 2025.

## Placed in

- LLM agents and tool use / [General LLM agent frameworks and benchmarks](https://mlsanity.com/agents/general-llm-agent-frameworks-and-benchmarks/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 38)

- [GPT-4 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.08774/) (2023)
- [Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2201.11903/) (2022)
- [ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.03629/) (2022)
- [Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Model](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.18290/) (2023)
- [Emergent Abilities of Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2206.07682/) (2022)
- [Voyager: An Open-Ended Embodied Agent with Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.16291/) (2023)
- [WebArena: A Realistic Web Environment for Building Autonomous Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.13854/) (2023)
- [The Rise and Potential of Large Language Model Based Agents: A Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.07864/) (2023)
- [WebShop: Towards Scalable Real-World Web Interaction with Grounded Language Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2207.01206/) (2022)
- [Inner Monologue: Embodied Reasoning through Planning with Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2207.05608/) (2022)
- [Language Models as Zero-Shot Planners: Extracting Actionable Knowledge for Embodied Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2201.07207/) (2022)
- [STaR: Bootstrapping Reasoning With Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.14465/) (2022)
- [Scaling Relationship on Learning Mathematical Reasoning with Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.01825/) (2023)
- [Beyond Human Data: Scaling Self-Training for Problem-Solving with Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.06585/) (2023)
- [AgentBoard: An Analytical Evaluation Board of Multi-turn LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.13178/) (2024)
- [AgentTuning: Enabling Generalized Agent Abilities for LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.12823/) (2023)
- [ScienceWorld: Is your Agent Smarter than a 5th Grader?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.07540/) (2022)
- [Step-DPO: Step-wise Preference Optimization for Long-chain Reasoning of LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.18629/) (2024)
- [FireAct: Toward Language Agent Fine-tuning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.05915/) (2023)
- [Contextual Markov Decision Processes](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1502.02259/) (2015)
- [Trial and Error: Exploration-Based Trajectory Optimization for LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.02502/) (2024)
- [AgentGym: Evolving Large Language Model-based Agents across Diverse Environments](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.04151/) (2024)
- [GLoRe: When, Where, and How to Improve LLM Reasoning via Global and Local Refinements](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.10963/) (2024)
- [Let's reward step by step: Step-Level reward model as the Navigators for Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.10080/) (2023)
- [Agent-FLAN: Designing Data and Methods of Effective Agent Tuning for Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.12881/) (2024)
- [RL on Incorrect Synthetic Data Scales the Efficiency of LLM Math Reasoning by Eight-Fold](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.14532/) (2024)
- [DART-Math: Difficulty-Aware Rejection Tuning for Mathematical Problem-Solving](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.13690/) (2024)
- [Watch Every Step! LLM Agent Learning via Iterative Step-Level Process Refinement](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.11176/) (2024)
- [ReST meets ReAct: Self-Improvement for Multi-Step Reasoning LLM Agent](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.10003/) (2023)
- [AgentBank: Towards Generalized LLM Agents via Fine-Tuning on 50000+ Interaction Trajectories](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.07706/) (2024)

## Built on by (most cited first, 9 of 9)

- [ProgRM: Build Better GUI Agents with Progress Rewards](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.18121/) (2025)
- [LLM4Cov: Execution-Aware Agentic Learning for High-coverage Testbench Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.16953/) (2026)
- [TopoCurate:Modeling Interaction Topology for Tool-Use Agent Training](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.01714/) (2026)
- [A Few Teacher Steps Go a Long Way: Cost-Efficient On-Policy Data Augmentation for Agent Post-Training](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.04574/) (2026)
- [FailForge: Distilling Procedural Competence from Persistent Failures into Code Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.08570/) (2026)
- [CurateEvo: Data-Curation Evolving for Agentic Post-Training](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.06140/) (2026)
- [Agent Error Dataset: Scaling 50,000 Error--Diagnosis Pairs for Failure Analysis and Error-Aware Post-Training](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.40111/) (2026)
- [Selective Critique for Cost-Aware LLM Agents in Long-Horizon Decision Making](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.07335/) (2026)
- [MedEvo: Medical Reasoning Evolution through Knowledge Navigation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.17690/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown tremendous potential as agents, excelling at tasks that require multiple rounds of reasoning and interactions. Rejection Sampling Fine-Tuning (RFT) has emerged as an effective method for finetuning LLMs as agents: it first imitates expert-generated successful trajectories and further improves agentic skills through iterative fine-tuning on successful, self-generated trajectories. However, since the expert (e.g., GPT-4) succeeds primarily on simpler subtasks and RFT inherently favors simpler scenarios, many complex subtasks remain unsolved and persistently out-of-distribution (OOD). Upon investigating these challenging subtasks, we discovered that previously failed expert trajectories can often provide valuable guidance, e.g., plans and key actions, that can significantly improve agent exploration efficiency and acquisition of critical skills. Motivated by these observations, we propose Exploring Expert Failures (EEF), which identifies beneficial actions from failed expert trajectories and integrates them into the training dataset. Potentially harmful actions are meticulously excluded to prevent contamination of the model learning process. By leveraging the beneficial actions in expert failures, EEF successfully solves some previously unsolvable subtasks and improves agent tuning performance. Remarkably, our approach achieved a 62% win rate in WebShop, outperforming RFT (53. 6%) and GPT-4 (35. 6%), and to the best of our knowledge, setting a new state-of-the-art as the first method to surpass a score of 0.81 in WebShop and exceed 81 in SciWorld.