Beyond Execution: Static-Analysis Rewards and Hint-Conditioned Diffusion RL for Code Generation

Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) trains language models using programmatically checkable signals such as unit-test outcomes, enabling direct optimization for functional correctness in code generation. We conduct an empirical study of RLVR for Python code generation on the MBPP benchmark using two small models (Qwen3-0.6B and Llama3.2-1B) with LoRA fine-tuning. Across multiple reward formulations such as: unit-test-only rewards, static-analysis-only shaping via the Ruff linter, and a combined reward, we compare group-based policy optimization variants (GRPO and GSPO) and evaluate both functional correctness and behavioral diagnostics. In our experimental setting, RLVR improves pass@1 on MBPP test by up to 13 percentage points under proposed combined reward configuration. However, we find that reward shaping can induce systematic behavioral shifts: using only static-analysis penalties may bias the policy toward shorter completions that reduce lint errors without reliably improving functional correctness. In contrast, combined rewards mitigate this degeneration and yield more stable trade-offs between correctness and style constraints. Overall, our results highlight that RLVR effectiveness for code generation is highly sensitive to reward design and optimization granularity, and that diagnostics beyond pass@1, including generation length, Ruff severity profiles, and execution error types are useful for identifying failure modes.

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.

Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) has driven substantial progress in large language model reasoning, but relies on ground-truth supervision that is costly or infeasible, especially in coding tasks. Recent work addresses this by deriving rewards from a model's own signals, such as majority voting or confidence-based scores, achieving notable success on mathematical reasoning benchmarks. However, code generation poses distinct challenges: programs are structurally complex, semantically equivalent solutions may differ syntactically, and verification typically requires execution. Whether these intrinsic reward methods transfer effectively to code remains unexplored. In this work, we present a systematic empirical study of intrinsic reward methods for code generation. We conduct extensive experiments on LiveCodeBench, systematically evaluating representative certainty-based Reinforcement Learning from Internal Feedback (RLIF) approaches under different training scenarios and hyperparameter settings. Our experiments reveal that certainty-based methods yield early gains but inevitably collapse: models progressively shorten outputs and lose reasoning capability, with collapse speed sensitive to sample size and temperature. When used to initialize RLVR training, RLIF pre-training offers no significant improvement over training from scratch. We also provide actionable recommendations for using intrinsic rewards for training code reasoning models. Our study shows both the promise and limitations of intrinsic reward methods for code, informing future work on code models and agents.