mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

FailForge: Distilling Procedural Competence from Persistent Failures into Code Agents

arXiv 2608.08570 ↗First posted 9 Aug 2026cs.AIcited by 1

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Rejection sampling fine-tuning (RFT) is widely used to train code agents by generating trajectories on verifiable software engineering tasks, retaining those that pass the tests, and fine-tuning on the successful rollouts. However, even strong code agents repeatedly fail on a substantial fraction of such tasks, and standard RFT simply discards these failures. The discarded samples are precisely the hardest and most informative ones, drawn from verifiable instances that are costly to curate. Stronger base models may reduce the number of failures, but the remaining hard cases still define the frontier for further improvement. We propose FailForge, an agentic framework that converts failed rollouts into training signal. For each failed instance, an agent diagnoses the failure from error feedback and execution traces, distills the diagnosis into a concise and actionable skill, and injects the skill into the agent context for a guided second attempt. Trajectories that succeed under skill guidance are folded back into the RFT corpus. Crucially, the skill is removed at training time, so the model internalizes the recovered behavior rather than relying on external hints at inference. FailForge recovers over 26% of previously failed instances at marginal additional cost, and training Qwen3.5-4B on the augmented corpus improves the SWE-bench Verified resolve rate by 6.6 points over a strong RFT baseline, with gains concentrated on the hardest problems.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 22 of its 32 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 9 Aug 2026.

Builds on

22 of 32 references.

References · 22

  1. 2024DeepSeekMath: Pushing the Limits of Mathematical Reasoning in Open Language Modelscited by 8,851
  2. 2021Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Codecited by 8,053
  3. 2023Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement with Self-Feedbackcited by 3,317
  4. 2023SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?cited by 3,193
  5. 2025DAPO: An Open-Source LLM Reinforcement Learning System at Scalecited by 2,678
  6. 2024OpenHands: An Open Platform for AI Software Developers as Generalist Agentscited by 956
  7. 2023ExpeL: LLM Agents Are Experiential Learnerscited by 814
  8. 2023CRITIC: Large Language Models Can Self-Correct with Tool-Interactive Critiquingcited by 751
  9. 2026GLM-5: from Vibe Coding to Agentic Engineeringcited by 502
  10. 2023Reinforced Self-Training (ReST) for Language Modelingcited by 486
  11. 2026Kimi K2.5: Visual Agentic Intelligencecited by 449
  12. 2024Training Software Engineering Agents and Verifiers with SWE-Gymcited by 300
10 more
  1. 2024CodeAgent: Enhancing Code Generation with Tool-Integrated Agent Systems for Real-World Repo-level Coding Challengescited by 278
  2. 2025SWE-smith: Scaling Data for Software Engineering Agentscited by 255
  3. 2025ReasoningBank: Scaling Agent Self-Evolving with Reasoning Memorycited by 253
  4. 2026Hindsight Credit Assignment for Long-Horizon LLM Agentscited by 51
  5. 2026Learn Hard Problems During RL with Reference Guided Fine-tuningcited by 11
  6. 2025Exploring Expert Failures Improves LLM Agent Tuningcited by 7
  7. 2025AdaSTaR: Adaptive Data Sampling for Training Self-Taught Reasonerscited by 6
  8. 2026Hindsight Hint Distillation: Scaffolded Reasoning for SWE Agents from CoT-free Answerscited by 4
  9. 2026Beyond Rejection Sampling: Trajectory Fusion for Scaling Mathematical Reasoningcited by 2
  10. 2026Step Rejection Fine-Tuning: A Practical Distillation Recipecited by 2

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. 2026Beyond Resolution Rates: Behavioral Drivers of Coding Agent Success and Failure
  2. 2025Understanding Code Agent Behaviour: An Empirical Study of Success and Failure Trajectories
  3. 2026Sentry: Learning to Recover from LLM Agent Failures at Test Time
  4. 2026Learning from Failure: Inference-Time Self-Improvement for Computer-Use Agents
  5. 2026Agent Skills Can Be Harmful: An Empirical Study of Skill-Induced Failures in LLM Agents
  6. 2026Tracing Agentic Failure from the Flow of Success
  7. 2026Seeing the Whole Elephant: A Benchmark for Failure Attribution in LLM-based Multi-Agent Systems
  8. 2026Coherence Collapse: Diagnosing Why Code Agents Fail After Reaching the Right Code