Unlocking LLM Code Correction with Iterative Feedback Loops

Large language models (LLMs) have made notable progress in code generation, but they still struggle on challenging tasks that require sophisticated algorithms or complex implementations. Recent methods increasingly use code execution as feedback, especially in self-correction pipelines that construct verification signals from generated code. However, these pipelines often depend on supervision signals whose reliability is unknown, which can introduce misleading feedback, unnecessary revisions, and incorrect final answers. To address this issue, we propose ExeCRE, an Execution-Consistency guided code Reliability Estimation framework. Instead of judging candidate code by tests or LLM feedback, ExeCRE estimates code reliability by statistically analyzing consistency patterns in execution outputs over a large number of randomly generated inputs. It collects execution outputs over generated inputs, projects them into consistency signals, and applies the Dawid-Skene model to infer latent code reliability. We integrate ExeCRE into self-correction for code generation. Experiments show that ExeCRE consistently improves both effectiveness and stability, while substantially reducing misleading correction signals. Under GPT-5.2 on LiveCodeBench, the average number of misleading feedback cases on already correct code drops from 113.2 with a representative self-correction baseline to 14.0 with ExeCRE. As an additional study, we apply the same reliability estimation strategy to code-based mathematical reasoning and observe similar benefits. These results suggest that ExeCRE enables more reliable use of generated code in execution-based pipelines.

Large language models (LLMs) have become integral to modern software development, enabling automated code generation at scale. However, validating the correctness of LLM-generated code remains a critical and largely unsolved challenge. Existing approaches either rely on dynamic consensus across multiple code candidates - making them costly and difficult to scale - or on static reasoning that is susceptible to dynamic bugs and order bias. In this paper, we propose TRAILS~ (Targeted Reasoning Agreement via Inputs and Specifications), an approach that grounds LLM reasoning with concrete (input, output) pairs. TRAILS~ first generates diverse test inputs via category partitioning based on the specification, then executes them against the candidate code and prompts LLMs to assess whether the resulting input-output pairs conform to the specification - without ever reasoning over the code itself. Scores are aggregated across inputs, to determines whether the program is likely correct. We evaluate TRAILS~ on two datasets, LiveCodeBench and CoCoClaNeL, across three LLMs (Qwen3Coder-30B, Devstral-Small-24B, and Olmo3.1-Instruct), comparing against HoarePrompt and a Zero-Shot Chain-of-Thought baseline. TRAILS~ improves Matthew Correlation Coefficient by up to 39% relative to Zero-Shot COT and consistently outperforms HoarePrompt. Beyond accuracy, TRAILS~ demonstrates greater stability across seeded runs, reducing sensitivity to LLM non-determinism, and assigns correct labels to a larger set of unique code samples than competing approaches.

Code generation models are typically compared using compact execution benchmarks and aggregate pass rates, but such summaries obscure how performance varies across programming languages, problem families, and failure modes. We present a large-scale, execution-grounded evaluation of 9 openly accessible LLMs specialized for coding on 2,707 free LeetCode problems across 12 programming languages. Our corpus contains 325,343 problem-model-language jobs, each linked to prompt metadata, extracted code, LeetCode execution outcomes, and static-analysis signals. The results show that current open models remain far from the human acceptance reference: the best model, Yi-Coder-9B-Chat, reaches 23.64% mean correctness, compared with a 57.2% human acceptance baseline. Rankings are also slice-dependent: Qwen2.5-Coder-14B-Instruct is strongest on hard problems and distinct-problem coverage, while Gemma-2-27B-IT achieves the highest all-language lint pass rate. Failure analysis shows that compile errors account for 63.25% of non-accepted best submissions, indicating that many failures occur before semantic correctness can be tested. Static quality further diverges from functional correctness. Together, these findings show that multilingual, artifact-preserving evaluation reveals tradeoffs hidden by single-language or single-metric leaderboards.