We investigate Functional Majority Voting (FMV), a method based on functional consensus for code generation with Large Language Models, which identifies a representative solution from multiple generations using their runtime execution signatures on test inputs. We find that FMV is an effective test-time inference strategy, substantially boosting performance on LiveCodeBench without a large compute overhead. Furthermore, we extend the utility of functional consensus and apply it as an aggregation strategy for label-free Test-Time Reinforcement Learning. We demonstrate that this increases pass@1 on holdout tasks, but find no evidence of self-improvement beyond the base model's performance ceiling.
LLM code-generation pipelines often sample multiple candidates and select one final answer without access to a complete oracle. Existing pipelines mix textual voting, ranking, and execution-based agreement, but the relative contribution of each component remains unclear. We study 18 configurations across different models, thinking levels, and benchmarks, comparing output-pattern majority voting, weighted voting, MBR-Exec, and SemanticVote - a method that clusters candidates by execution fingerprints on LLM-generated inputs. Three findings emerge. (1) The best execution-based selector exceeds output-pattern majority voting by 19-52 percentage points on every configuration, with every execution-based selector exceeding it by at least 18 points. (2) Once candidates are executed on diverse inputs, aggregation rule has limited effect: SemanticVote, weighted voting, and MBR-Exec are statistically indistinguishable across all 18 configurations. The largest factor is input quality: sketch-based input generation consistently outperforms direct LLM generation by 0.6-2.1 pp and random fuzzing by up to 11.3 pp. (3) Thinking level interacts differently with selection families: deeper thinking improves majority voting by 12 pp but execution-based methods stay flat or degrade as candidate diversity falls. These results frame inference-time code selection as a signal-quality problem rather than an aggregation-rule problem: when oracles are unavailable, the behavioral evidence matters more than the aggregation rule.
Large language models (LLMs) have substantially improved code generation, yet achieving strong functional correctness remains difficult, especially for heterogeneous programming tasks where a single prompting strategy and a single directly generated output are often insufficient. In this paper, we present RAV, a lightweight and modular framework that improves code generation with a fixed backbone model through three coordinated stages: Route, which applies task-aware prompt routing before generation; Align, which reduces the mismatch between fine-tuning prompts and inference-time prompts through aligned LoRA adaptation; and Verify, which selects the final output by executing multiple candidates against visible public tests. We evaluate RAV on the MBPP benchmark under both the sanitized and full settings. The complete RAV pipeline achieves the best performance among all evaluated configurations, reaching 0.8911 on MBPP Sanitized and 0.8520 on MBPP Full. Compared with the base model, these results represent improvements of 6.35 and 9.92 percentage points, respectively. Component-wise ablation experiments further show that task-aware routing and aligned adaptation become substantially more effective when combined with execution-based verification. Additional robustness and contamination analyses support the reliability of the observed improvements. Overall, the results indicate that functional correctness in code generation can be meaningfully improved without modifying the backbone architecture, by jointly optimizing how tasks are prompted, how the model is adapted, and how final outputs are selected.
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.