mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Teach it to stop, not just to click

arXiv 2607.17136 ↗First posted 19 Jul 2026cs.SE cs.AI cs.HCcited by 1

On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Software engineering coding agents

Abstract (arXiv)

Agentic computer-use RL is reported in single runs, and those numbers mislead. Using verifier-guided repair of a 35B computer-use agent (CUA) across five oracle-graded environments, we show a repaired policy's success rate is dominated by upstream variance: a variance-components decomposition across three cells (crossed data-draw × seed grid, bootstrap CIs) finds evaluation variance negligible (σeval ≈ 0) and the training-seed effect small everywhere (≤ 10%); instead it splits between the data draw and run-to-run nondeterminism, the data draw's share rising to dominant (48%) on the hardest cell. There the run-to-run distribution is bimodal (Hartigan dip p=0.07, k=10), so a single run has roughly a 30% chance of the failure mode and mean±std is the wrong summary. On that footing, two findings hold. First, repairability is two-tier in how constrained the corrective action is: a single fixed token installs reliably (done-detection 0.97±0.06), while open-ended corrections are only partial -- spatial-coordinate clicks (grounding 0.53±0.35) and a generative field-fill (0.14±0.04). Second, the frame-level repair transfers to task success only when the corrective action is the task's sole remaining blocker (LinkedIn 8/20 vs. base 0/15, Fisher p=0.006). We caught two of our own over-claims -- a sample-efficiency curve and a 'grounding cannot be bought' boundary -- only by replicating across seeds; a stress test makes the stakes external: a single-run improvement of the size this field publishes would have the wrong sign roughly one-third of the time in a comparable regime. We release a library (cuareliability) for routine k-seed reporting. The apparatus is, to our knowledge, the first multimodal segment-aggregated on-policy self-distillation (SA-OPSD) update on a real 35B CUA policy.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Software engineering coding agents, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 10 of its 13 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 19 Jul 2026.

Builds on

10 of 13 references.

References · 10

  1. 2023On-Policy Distillation of Language Models: Learning from Self-Generated Mistakescited by 840
  2. 2021Deep Reinforcement Learning at the Edge of the Statistical Precipicecited by 781
  3. 2017Deep Reinforcement Learning that Matterscited by 727
  4. 2025GUI-Shepherd: Reliable Process Reward and Verification for Long-Sequence GUI Taskscited by 25
  5. 2025Refined Policy Distillation: From VLA Generalists to RL Expertscited by 19
  6. 2026GUI-GENESIS: Automated Synthesis of Efficient Environments with Verifiable Rewards for GUI Agent Post-Trainingcited by 16
  7. 2026Adaptive Milestone Reward for GUI Agentscited by 11
  8. 2026OS-Themis: A Scalable Critic Framework for Generalist GUI Rewardscited by 9
  9. 2026VLA-OPD: Bridging Offline SFT and Online RL for Vision-Language-Action Models via On-Policy Distillationcited by 9
  10. 2026MagicGUI-RMS: A Multi-Agent Reward Model System for Self-Evolving GUI Agents via Automated Feedback Refluxcited by 4

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.

1 paper.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Same Winners, Different Success Rates: Evaluating How LLM Agents Recover from Failures
  2. 2026Sentry: Learning to Recover from LLM Agent Failures at Test Time
  3. 2025Agentic Reinforcement Learning for Real-World Code Repair
  4. 2025Dive into the Agent Matrix: A Realistic Evaluation of Self-Replication Risk in LLM Agents
  5. 2026Repair or Resample? Rethinking Failure Debugging in LLM Multi-Agent Systems
  6. 2026Diagnosis Is Not Prescription: Linguistic Co-Adaptation Explains Patching Hazards in LLM Pipelines
  7. 2025SABER: Small Actions, Big Errors -- Safeguarding Mutating Steps in LLM Agents
  8. 2026When Harnesses Lose the Signal: Causal Evaluation of Recovery in LLM Agents