InCoder-32B-Thinking: Industrial Code World Model for Thinking
Authors: Jian Yang, Wei Zhang, Jiajun Wu, Junhang Cheng, Tuney Zheng, Fanglin Xu, Weicheng Gu, Lin Jing, Yaxin Du, Joseph Li, Yizhi Li, Yan Xing, Chuan Hao, Ran Tao, Ruihao Gong, Aishan Liu, Zhoujun Li, Mingjie Tang, Chenghua Lin, Siheng Chen, Wayne Xin Zhao, Xianglong Liu, Ming Zhou, Bryan Dai, Weifeng Lv
Organizations: Beihang University · IQuest Research · Shanghai Jiao Tong University · ELLIS · University of Manchester · Sichuan University · Gaoling School of Artificial Intelligence, Renmin University of China · Langboat
Industrial software development across chip design, GPU optimization, and embedded systems lacks expert reasoning traces showing how engineers reason about hardware constraints and timing semantics. In this work, we propose InCoder-32B-Thinking, trained on the data from the Error-driven Chain-of-Thought (ECoT) synthesis framework with an industrial code world model (ICWM) to generate reasoning traces. Specifically, ECoT generates reasoning chains by synthesizing the thinking content from multi-turn dialogue with environmental error feedback, explicitly modeling the error-correction process. ICWM is trained on domain-specific execution traces from Verilog simulation, GPU profiling, etc., learns the causal dynamics of how code affects hardware behavior, and enables self-verification by predicting execution outcomes before actual compilation. All synthesized reasoning traces are validated through domain toolchains, creating training data matching the natural reasoning depth distribution of industrial tasks. Evaluation on 14 general (81.3% on LiveCodeBench v5) and 9 industrial benchmarks (84.0% in CAD-Coder and 38.0% on KernelBench) shows InCoder-32B-Thinking achieves top-tier open-source results across all domains.GPU Optimization
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of InCoder-32B-Thinking, a coder for general and industrial code intelligence with thinking capability, which supports tasks from general coding to industrial tasks such as GPU optimization, chip design, and 3D modeling.
Figure 2: The performance of InCoder-32B-Thinking on code benchmarks.
Figure 3: Comparison of CUDA kernel implementations for Hinge Loss. Through reasoning, InCoder-32B-Thinking identifies the shape mismatch between the 2D predictions and 1D targets tensors, correctly mapping flat indices to row indices for proper broadcasting. The non-thinking model indexes both tensors with the same flat index, causing out-of-bounds error.
Figure 4: Overview of the data engine pipeline. Left: task seeds and environment bundles are passed through an elicitation, execution, feedback loop against real backends, producing multi-turn trajectories Dreal . Right: Dreal trains an ICWM that simulates the real backends during large-scale synthesis; periodic audits keep the world model calibrated across iterations.
Model
Size
EvalPlus
BigCodeBench
FullStackBench
HumanEval
HumanEval+
MBPP
MBPP+
Full
Hard
6B+ Models
DeepSeek-Coder-V2-Lite-Instruct
2.4/16B
81.1
75.6
85.2
70.6
37.8
18.9
49.4
Qwen2.5-Coder-7B-Instruct
7B
87.2
81.7
84.7
72.2
37.8
13.5
42.2
Seed-Coder-8B-Instruct
8B
81.1
75.6
86.2
73.3
44.6
23.6
55.8
Qwen2.5-Coder-14B-Instruct
14B
62.8
59.8
88.6
77.2
47.0
6.1
53.1
Table 1: Performance comparison on general code generation tasks.
Model
Size
Code Reasoning
Code Efficiency
Text2SQL
CruxEval
LiveCodeBench
Mercury
Bird
Spider
Input-COT
Output-COT
V5
V6
Beyond@1
Pass@1
6B+ Models
DeepSeek-Coder-V2-Lite-Instruct
2.4/16B
57.1
56.2
13.2
19.4
76.8
91.4
41.6
72.4
Qwen2.5-Coder-7B-Instruct
7B
66.9
66.0
14.4
18.9
69.9
84.8
53.1
79.8
Seed-Coder-8B-Instruct
8B
62.0
66.6
19.2
22.3
78.5
93.8
44.7
72.7
Table 2: Performance comparison on code reasoning (CruxEval, LiveCodeBench), code efficiency (Mercury), and Text2SQL (Bird, Spider) benchmarks.
Model
Size
Agentic Coding
General Tool Use
Terminal-Bench
SWE-bench Verified
Mind2Web
BFCL V3
τ2 -bench
v1.0
v2.0
Airline
Retail
Telecom
6B+ Models
DeepSeek-Coder-V2-Lite-Instruct
2.4/16B
5.0
-
-
26.7
-
3.5
12.0
-
Qwen2.5-Coder-7B-Instruct
7B
6.3
-
-
38.4
54.2
-
-
-
Seed-Coder-8B-Instruct
8B
7.5
2.5
-
38.2
-
4.3
32.0
-
Table 3: Performance comparison on agentic coding tasks (Terminal-Bench v1.0, Terminal-Bench v2.0, SWE-Verified) and general tool-use tasks (Mind2Web, BFCL V3, τ2 -bench).
Model
Size
VeriScope
VeriRepair
RealBench
ArchXBench
Score
Fix (%)
System
Module
n
t
Syn@1
Syn@5
Syn@1
Syn@5
Func@1
Func@5
6B+ Models
Qwen3.5-9B
9B
32.0
-
-
-
6.3
15.8
4.3
8.5
1.9
44.3
GPT-OSS-20B
3.6/21B
73.9
86.7
3.8
17.4
22.9
47.9
9.8
21.0
3.1
53.5
Qwen3.5-27B
27B
55.7
60.0
6.2
20.1
17.1
33.8
10.6
17.8
2.6
48.3
Table 4: Performance comparison on chip design benchmarks. InCoder-32B-Thinking results are highlighted in gray.
Model
Size
CAD-Coder
EmbedCGen
SuperCoder
TritonBench
KernelBench
Comp.
IoU
Main (%)
Acc. (%)
Spd.
G-call (%)
G-exe (%)
T-call (%)
T-exe (%)
L1
L2
L3
6B+ Models
Qwen3.5-9B
9B
2.0
-
10.0
36.0
1.0 ×
2.7
100.0
3.6
100.0
-
-
-
GPT-OSS-20B
3.6/21B
2.0
2.0
30.6
16.0
1.0 ×
2.2
100.0
1.2
100.0
5.1
10.0
2.0
Qwen3.5-27B
27B
4.0
0.3
9.6
6.0
1.9 ×
5.4
100.0
25.9
97.7
5.1
6.0
4.0
30B+ Models
Table 5: Performance on GPU optimization, code optimization, and 3D modeling benchmarks. InCoder-32B-Thinking results are highlighted in gray.
Figure 5: ICWM fidelity across five industrial domains. Outcome prediction accuracy measures per-turn label agreement; trajectory agreement measures end-to-end verdict consistency over multi-turn correction sequences. The dashed line marks the 95% threshold. All domains exceed 95% on outcome accuracy; the 1.6–2.8 pp gap to trajectory agreement reflects error compounding across turns.
Figure 6: Statistics of median thinking length (T) and answer length (A) per task category, sorted by thinking depth. Shaded bands show the inter-quartile range (P25–P75). Industrial domains are highlighted in purple. Thinking depth spans a 209 × range, reflecting the naturally varying reasoning demands of different execution backends.
Figure 7: Performance visualization of InCoder-32B-Thinking across nine industrial code benchmarks as thinking training data scales from 180M to 540M tokens.
Recent code large language models have achieved remarkable progress on general programming tasks. Nevertheless, their performance degrades significantly in industrial scenarios that require reasoning about hardware semantics, specialized language constructs, and strict resource constraints. To address these challenges, we introduce InCoder-32B (Industrial-Coder-32B), the first 32B-parameter code foundation model unifying code intelligence across chip design, GPU kernel optimization, embedded systems, compiler optimization, and 3D modeling. By adopting an efficient architecture, we train InCoder-32B from scratch with general code pre-training, curated industrial code annealing, mid-training that progressively extends context from 8K to 128K tokens with synthetic industrial reasoning data, and post-training with execution-grounded verification. We conduct extensive evaluation on 14 mainstream general code benchmarks and 9 industrial benchmarks spanning 4 specialized domains. Results show InCoder-32B achieves highly competitive performance on general tasks while establishing strong open-source baselines across industrial domains.
Jian Yang, Wei Zhang, Jiajun Wu +25
Beihang University · IQuest Research · Shanghai Jiao Tong University +6
Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have shown that test-time scaling can substantially improve model performance on complex tasks, particularly in the coding domain. Under this paradigm, models use a larger token budget during inference to generate intermediate reasoning traces before producing a final answer. However, current evaluations primarily rely on competitive programming benchmarks, which may not capture the full range of reasoning abilities. In this work, we perform a systematic study of frontier reasoning models to understand their performance on real-world coding benchmarks. To gain more insights into the performance of such models, we devise a programmatic way to {\em automatically generate} coding tasks of arbitrary difficulty and structure from existing benchmarks. Using this framework, our analysis reveals that the structure of a reasoning trace, not just its contents, is a strong predictor of correctness. Motivated by this, we propose structured thought-trees as means to represent reasoning traces. To illustrate their use, we train a lightweight classifier on features extracted from thought-trees to predict trace correctness, and demonstrate that flagging and retrying structurally anomalous traces based on the extracted features yields consistent gains at lower complexity levels.
Existing code reasoning methods primarily supervise final code outputs, ignoring intermediate states, often leading to reward hacking where correct answers are obtained through inconsistent reasoning. We propose StepCodeReasoner, a framework that introduces explicit intermediate execution-state supervision. By automatically inserting structured print-based execution-trace anchors into code, the model is trained to predict runtime states at each step, transforming code reasoning into a verifiable, stepwise execution modeling problem. Building on this execution-aware method, we introduce Bi-Level GRPO, a reinforcement learning algorithm for structured credit assignment at two levels: inter-trajectory, comparing alternative execution paths, and intra-trajectory, rewarding intermediate accuracy based on its impact on downstream correctness. Extensive experiments demonstrate that StepCodeReasoner achieves SOTA performance in code reasoning. In particular, our 7B model achieves 91.1% on CRUXEval and 86.5% on LiveCodeBench, outperforming the CodeReasoner-7B baseline (86.0% and 77.7%) and GPT-4o (85.6% and 75.1%). Furthermore, on the execution-trace benchmark REval, our model scores 82.9%, outperforming baseline CodeReasoner-7B (72.3%), its 14B counterpart (81.1%), and GPT-4o (77.3%). Additionally, our approach also improves code generation performance, demonstrating that explicit execution modeling enhances both code reasoning and code generation.
Hao Wang, Rui Li, Lei Sha +1
Beihang University, Beijing, China · Peking University, Beijing, China · Zhongguancun Laboratory, Beijing, China +1