Ren-Biao Liu

Xin-Ye Li, Ren-Biao Liu, Yun-Ji Zhang et al.

Reinforcement learning (RL) from unit-test feedback has become a standard post-training recipe for improving large language models (LLMs) on code generation. However, the pass-all-tests binary reward can be sparse, yielding no learning signal on challenging problems where none of the sampled solutions passes all tests. A common remedy is to use the test-case pass rate as a surrogate reward. In this work, we study pass-rate rewards in critic-free RL for code generation (e.g., GRPO and RLOO) and report a consistent pattern across base models and algorithms: despite alleviating reward sparsity, pass-rate rewards do not reliably improve final performance over binary rewards in rigorous controlled experiments. To understand this discrepancy, we analyze reward density and the resulting gradient directions. We find that pass-rate rewards are denser, but the induced gradient updates do not consistently move probability mass toward full-pass solutions. This arises because test-case pass rate is a miscalibrated surrogate for progress toward full correctness, and partial-pass solutions within the same group can induce conflicting gradient directions that cancel out. Overall, our results suggest that, in critic-free RL, pass-rate rewards are insufficient to improve code generation and motivate reward designs that better align optimization with the goal of full correctness.

Hui Sun, Yun-Ji Zhang, Zheng Xie et al.

Selecting LLM-generated code candidates using LLM-generated tests is challenging because the tests themselves may be incorrect. Existing methods either treat all tests equally or rely on ad-hoc heuristics to filter unreliable tests. Yet determining test correctness requires knowing which codes are correct, creating a \emph{circular dependency}. Our key insight is that we need not determine test correctness at all: \emph{test votes should rank, not merely count}. What matters is not how many codes pass a test, but whether the test can \emph{distinguish} correct from incorrect code. We break the circular dependency via leave-one-out evaluation: hold out one test, rank codes by their aggregate scores on all remaining tests, and measure whether the held-out test's pass/fail pattern agrees with this ranking. We formalize this agreement as the leave-one-out AUC~(LOO-AUC) and prove that the expected LOO-AUC is proportional to each test's ability to separate correct code from incorrect code. Building on this, we propose \textbf{ACES}~(\textbf{A}UC \textbf{C}onsist\textbf{E}ncy \textbf{S}coring) with two complementary variants: ACES-C provides closed-form weights that provably approximate the oracle in expectation under a mild assumption on average test quality; ACES-O drops this assumption and iteratively optimizes a differentiable LOO-AUC objective. Both operate solely on the binary pass matrix with negligible overhead, and achieve state-of-the-art Pass@$k$ on multiple code generation benchmarks.