mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

How Much Evidence Should a Coding Agent's Self-Correction Carry? Adaptive Dirichlet Evidence for Self-Distillation

arXiv 2610.08514 ↗First posted 6 Oct 2026cs.AI cs.SEcited by 0

On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Agent memory systems also fits: Software engineering coding agents

also in 1 more
Abstract (arXiv)

Execution feedback lets coding agents revise programs and learn from their own corrections. A correction's learning weight should reflect both the transitions supported by its executions and the amount of evidence behind that support. We introduce Effective-Evidence Self-Distillation (EESD), which represents these quantities separately. Normalized execution relevance determines relative transition support and an effective pseudo-count mass; a Dirichlet posterior then produces an uncertainty-penalized weight for KL-anchored correction learning. Under a symmetric prior, changing mass preserves category ordering, and effective mass yields a supervised coefficient bounded by its matched fixed-mass counterpart. Across four model-domain history sweeps, increasing visible observations from one to eight reduces future-outcome NLL by 55.0-59.3%. At eight observations, effective mass achieves lower NLL than fixed mass in all four comparisons. In the primary matched DeepSeek/RunBugRun study, argmax predictions agree on all 3,000 examples, with the largest NLL gain under concentrated relevance. After one correction-learning round, DeepSeek/CodeARC all-tests Pass@1 increases from 15.0% to 20.4%, with a paired 95% source-bootstrap interval of [+2.8, +8.0] percentage points. The twelve-setting downstream evaluation establishes the model-domain scope of this update. These results show how separating evidence support from evidence mass changes probability estimation and correction learning in coding agents.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Agent memory systems, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 7 of its 19 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 6 Oct 2026.

Builds on

7 of 19 references.

References · 7

  1. 2023Teaching Large Language Models to Self-Debugcited by 988
  2. 2025CodeARC: Benchmarking Reasoning Capabilities of LLM Agents for Inductive Program Synthesiscited by 16
  3. 2026CODESKILL: Learning Self-Evolving Skills for Coding Agentscited by 12
  4. 2023RunBugRun -- An Executable Dataset for Automated Program Repaircited by 11
  5. 2026Socratic-SWE: Self-Evolving Coding Agents via Trace-Derived Agent Skillscited by 9
  6. 2025Dynamic Noise Preference Optimization: Self-Improvement of Large Language Models with Self-Synthetic Datacited by 4
  7. 2026ExecCritic: Learn to Test, Test to Improve for Coding Agentscited by 3

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Activation-Conditioned Self-Distillation
  2. 2025Self-Correction Bench: Uncovering and Addressing the Self-Correction Blind Spot in Large Language Models
  3. 2026Why Does Feedback-Augmented Self-Distillation Fail to Improve Retrieval-Interleaved Search Agents?
  4. 2026Overcoming Scaling Limits in On-Policy Self-Distillation for LLM Reasoning
  5. 2026CoRefine: Confidence-Guided Self-Refinement for Adaptive Test-Time Compute
  6. 2025ReVISE: Learning to Refine at Test-Time via Intrinsic Self-Verification
  7. 2026Rehearse: Stepping Back from the Confidence Cliff in Self-Improving Autoresearch
  8. 2025Fine-Tuning Masked Diffusion for Provable Self-Correction