Join the conversation

Join the community of Machine Learners and AI enthusiasts.

Sign Up
sergiopaniego 
posted an update 2 days ago
Post
6,128
New post-training example: SFT on agent traces with TRL

→ A large model works as a coding agent in OpenCode, run through OpenEnv
→ The tasks it solves become the training data
→ A 2B model goes from 5.5% to 34.4% on held-out tasks

About 500 traces get most of the gain. Five times more add only 3 to 4 points, so SFT gets the agent working and RL has to do the rest

Full guide, with the models, traces and every rollout open:
https://github.com/huggingface/trl/tree/main/examples/sft_agent_traces

The filter is good hygiene, but the 17.3% vs 42.4% split isn't measuring familiarity with the files.

I rebuilt it from your rollouts. The 497 tasks the teacher solved in the pilot and gen runs cover the datasets behind 92 of the 144 eval tasks, leaving 52. 17.3% and 42.4% are exactly 9/52 and 39/92.

SFT-500 never saw an eval dataset (0 of its 497 task_names share one), and it splits the same way: 10/52 (19.2%) vs 38/92 (41.3%), Fisher p = 0.01.
SFT-1k and full do too: 23.1 vs 38.0, 23.1 vs 44.6. Base 2B is flat, 7.7 vs 7.6.

So filtered or not, the student lands on 48/144. Those 92 are easier for a trained student, seen or unseen.

Is the unfiltered run's eval folder up anywhere? A per-task diff against SFT-500 on the 92 would show whether seeing the files bought anything.