Co-Located Tests, Better AI Code: How Test Syntax Structure Affects Foundation Model Code Generation

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.

Large language models frequently generate code that appears correct on typical inputs yet fails on edge cases, invalid inputs, and other specification-defined corner conditions. A popular fix has the model write its own tests and repair until they pass, but the source of the gain is unclear: does it come from the tests merely existing, or from their grounding in a specification of what the code should do? We isolate this factor. Holding the tester, test budget, and repair loop fixed, we change a single prompt line that controls whether the tester receives the spec as a checklist of rules. The baseline is strong: it is already told to probe invalid inputs and edge cases. Grounding the tests in the spec produces correct code +38 percentage points more often than this baseline across three Claude tiers (Haiku 4.5, Sonnet 4.6, Opus 4.8), and +36 points on a held-out set. Grounding, not test quantity, is the primary driver: doubling the test budget barely helps, and combining eight independent ungrounded suites plateaus far below grounding. An ablation isolates the spec's content, not its format: given the spec as a plain paragraph the tester recovers 27 of 30 bugs, but asked to plan tests without the spec it recovers only 2 of 30. The effect survives stronger baselines: a property-based generator catches 28 of 30 bugs but invents out-of-spec requirements, and an AlphaCodium-style loop only matches the baseline. It replicates across vendors (GPT-5.3-codex +28, Gemini 3.5 Flash +19), with a task-level sign test over 18 tasks significant at p=0.002. Grounding improves both sensitivity and precision: it catches more real bugs and wrongly rejects far less correct code, cutting the false-alarm rate from 33% (68% against a Python standard-library oracle) to 0%. On well-specified algorithmic problems it neither helps nor hurts.

AI coding assistants are becoming co-authors of production software, yet their evaluation centers on functional correctness, leaving open whether their code differs from human code in the quality dimensions dominating lifecycle cost. We compare human-written and AI-generated code at scale: 787,562 function pairs across Python, Java, and C, each human function mined from open-source repositories paired with implementations generated from its docstring by three AI assistants (OpenAI GPT models, DeepSeek-Coder, Qwen2.5-Coder). We characterize structural complexity and statistical naturalness, and map static-analysis findings onto Orthogonal Defect Classification for defects and the Common Weakness Enumeration for vulnerabilities, making authors and languages directly comparable. AI-generated code is structurally compressed and stylistically templated: roughly half the size and branching of human code, clustering apart at the style level. Defect profiles differ in kind: human code concentrates issues of mature codebases, AI code repetitive boilerplate; security is language-dependent, with LLMs producing more, and more severe, findings in Python and Java but fewer high-severity memory-safety findings than humans in C. Once size is controlled for, complexity metrics carry little signal, while naturalness separates authors. Finally, we release CQBench, a benchmark of 27,346 issue-prone tasks with baselines and an evaluation pipeline for quality assurance and security testing.