Reinforcement Learning for Code Optimization

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.

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.

Linear interpolation between fine-tuned checkpoints has been shown to trace the Pareto front between competing objectives, but whether extrapolative weight averaging can extend such frontiers to new checkpoints useful at inference time, without additional RL training, remains unclear. We study this question in RL for competitive programming, where hidden unit tests under time and memory limits enforce both functional correctness and computational efficiency. Starting from a shared initialization, we train checkpoints under nested unit-test coverage: low-coverage rewards require passing smaller-input tests, while high-coverage rewards require passing progressively larger tests up to the full suite. This sweep reveals the emergence of a correctness-efficiency frontier: on hard problems, higher-coverage reward reduces optimization failures but increases correctness failures, leaving solve rate nearly unchanged. Interpolation between low- and high-coverage checkpoints recovers this frontier, while extrapolation extends it beyond the trained endpoints. Both the frontier and its extrapolative continuation appear across three inference settings, pure reasoning, tool use, and agentic coding, and across two model scales, 32B and 7B. At the problem level, moving along the frontier changes which problems are solved, making extrapolated checkpoints complementary policies in inference-time scaling. Ensembles with extrapolative weight averaging broaden coverage and improve pass@250 on LCB/hard by 3.3% over the best single checkpoint at matched sample budget. These results show that nested unit-test coverage in code RL induces a frontier that extrapolative weight averaging can navigate, extend, and exploit.