Existing methods for test-time reinforcement learning (TTRL) derive rewards from answer-level self-voting on unlabeled test-time tasks with canonical answers, but this breaks down for code generation because programs cannot be compared by surface form and therefore do not directly provide a usable training signal. To make TTRL applicable to code generation, we propose probe-driven TTRL, which constructs output-free probe inputs from the problem statement, executes candidate programs on these probes, and defines a Probe Consensus Reward (PCR) from the resulting behavioral agreement. PCR provides a behavioral training signal for open-vocabulary programs, but it is not a fully reliable verifier and remains susceptible to reward hacking through spurious consensus. We therefore introduce Entropy-Regularized Rank-Masked Policy Optimization (ERPO), which converts low PCR into conservative negative updates through rank masking and controls policy drift with an entropy ceiling. On coding benchmarks, ERPO substantially improves pass@1 and pass@k in both in-domain adaptation and zero-shot transfer.
Multi-turn code agents rely on execution feedback to repair incorrect programs, yet standard reinforcement learning paradigms optimize and evaluate policy performance primarily using single-shot outcome rewards. This misalignment conflates initial code generation with feedback-driven refinement, discards granular execution signals across intermediate turns, and fails to evaluate whether the policy actually acquires self-repair capabilities. We propose Test-aware Policy Refinement (TaPR), a framework that transforms execution feedback into a dense per-turn test-pass-ratio reward under a consistent multi-turn interaction protocol. Across six models on 219 code-generation problems from LiveCodeBench, TaPR improves the pooled three-turn success rate (Pass@3) by 2.44 percentage points. In the predefined 7B/8B high-headroom slice, pooled accuracy increases from 30.25% to 33.56% (+3.31 pp), with 42 improvements and 13 regressions in paired trials. On a matched Qwen3-8B ablation, the dense reward supplies nonzero feedback in all of the first ten steps and reaches a higher Hard-subset peak than outcome-only GRPO within the tested budget, although GRPO nearly matches pooled Pass@3 by step 300. Our primary contribution is a reward-decomposition framework and a turn-aware evaluation protocol that decouple first-shot generation quality from multi-turn repair competence.
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.