Beyond the Need for Speed: Energy-Aware Code Generation via Simulation-Guided Reinforcement Learning

Code models are increasingly trained with execution feedback, but most training signals still stop at correctness. This leaves an important gap for systems code: two programs can pass the same tests while differing greatly in runtime. We study how to train code agents to prefer faster correct implementations, rather than treating efficiency only as an evaluation metric. The key difficulty is that runtime is a fragile reward. It is meaningful only after a program is correct, varies across tasks, and gives little guidance when most sampled programs fail to compile or run. We propose \textbf{RLPF}, reinforcement learning from performance feedback, which turns execution outcomes into a staged reward. Failed programs are ordered by execution progress, while correct programs are ranked by their relative improvement from the baseline toward the expert reference. This gives useful feedback before correctness and performance-sensitive feedback after correctness. Fine-tuning Qwen3-32B with RLPF on PerfCodeBench raises correct-and-runnable solutions from $11.1\%$ to $54.6\%$ and improves relative efficiency from $8.1\%$ to $38.6\%$. The trained model becomes competitive with stronger open-weight systems, and its optimization behavior transfers modestly to EffiBench-X. Additional studies show that model-generated references provide useful but weaker supervision, and that the full composite reward is more reliable than correctness-only or runtime-only baselines. These results suggest that code agents can be trained not only to pass tests, but also to optimize the programs they write.

Small language models (1-3B) are practical to run locally, but individually limited on harder code generation tasks. We ask whether composing them into pipelines can recover some of that lost capability. We study code generation pipelines built from 1-3B models with execution feedback, and use a NEAT-inspired evolutionary search to test whether more complex pipeline structure helps beyond a simple refinement loop. We evaluate on HumanEval (164 problems) and sanitized MBPP (427 problems), all with local inference on a single laptop. Self-refinement with execution feedback improves code generation by more than 4 standard deviations on both benchmarks. The gains are narrow in mechanism: refinement fixes many runtime errors (especially NameError and SyntaxError), but rarely fixes logic errors such as AssertionError. Within our tested general-purpose model pool, generator identity mattered less than refiner capability: a 1.5B generator paired with a 3B refiner matched a 3B model doing both roles. Early stopping is essential; without it, every iteration is net-negative. The code-specialized models outperform every general-purpose pipeline configuration, suggesting model specialization matters more than pipeline architecture. Preliminary text-only pipeline experiments without execution feedback did not show gains at this scale. In our constrained search space, evolutionary search mostly rediscovered the same simple generate-execute-refine loop we found manually, with no clearly significant gain from added topology. Single-evaluation fitness inflates results by 5-7 percent, selecting lucky genomes over good ones. On these benchmarks at 1-3B scale, execution feedback mattered more than added pipeline complexity in determining whether composition helped.

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.